Health Tracker Systems LLC filed suit on Thursday in the Southern District of New York against Michael Kors (USA), Inc. The complaint for patent infringement alleges that several of the defendant’s products, systems, and services infringe on a patent held by the plaintiff that is designed to monitor human activity.
The patent-in-suit is held by plaintiff HTS. It was issued to HTS in June of 2003 and is titled “System and method of monitoring and modifying human activity-based behavior.” The complaint explains that the patent is presumed valid and enforceable.
The claims of the patent-in-suit attempted to address the technical challenges in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Treatments for ADHD have had issues concerning their efficiency and privacy. The claims, which pertain to monitoring human activity, “recite one or more inventive concepts that are rooted in improving the efficiency of activity monitors while reducing their size.”
The complaint asserts that the defendants produce and market products, systems, and services that infringe on the patent-in-suit. The Michael Kors Access Gen 5E MKGO is among the products that the plaintiff alleges infringes on the patent-in-suit. The product is described in the complaint as a smartwatch, which “incorporates sensors which can differentiate various activity levels performed by a user, such as running, walking, and sleeping.
HTS contends that the Access Gen 5E MKGO watch is infringing because it embodies some of the plaintiff’s patented inventions. Their alleged infringement has taken place through their practicing of internal testing, quality assurance, research and development, and troubleshooting for the product.
As a result of the defendant’s alleged infringement, HTS explains that they have sustained damages. The complaint cites one count of infringement. The plaintiff is seeking favorable judgment on the count of infringement, pre- and post-judgment interest, treble damages, litigation fees, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Loaknauth Law, P.C. and Budo Law P.C.
