Plaintiff

BodyMedia, Inc.

3 cases as plaintiff.

Cases
3
Active
0
3 closed
Filed
2012–2015
Top venue
D. Delaware
1 case
Also appears as a defendant in 3 cases → View as defendant

Company profile

I'll research BodyMedia to verify the company's profile and litigation context.

Let me verify the litigation details and current ownership status.

BodyMedia, Inc. was a privately held wearable-health company founded in 1999 by four Carnegie Mellon University researchers and based at 420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA. It developed around-the-clock on-body monitoring systems; its product lines included the BodyMedia FIT and Core armbands — multi-sensor devices combining an accelerometer with skin-temperature, heat-flux and galvanic-skin-response sensors — plus subscription data services and SenseWear software analysis. The platform was registered with the FDA as a Class II medical device. Press coverage put the company at roughly 60 employees at acquisition, and its founder described a portfolio of about 87 issued patents. In April 2013, Jawbone (AliphCom, Inc.) acquired BodyMedia for a reported ~$110 million; CEO Christine Robins became a Jawbone general manager and VP.

Patent-litigation posture: an operating company and active two-way litigant, not an NPE — it holds 2 plaintiff and 1 defendant appearances in the tracked data. Before acquisition, BodyMedia sued Basis Science in the District of Delaware (Feb. 2012), asserting six patents on wearable body-monitoring and sensor-fusion technology and seeking injunctive relief; Basis Science was later acquired by Intel (2014). After the Jawbone deal, BodyMedia appeared with AliphCom/Jawbone as a complainant in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (complaint filed July 2015), asserting six BodyMedia/Jawbone patents against Fitbit and alleging trade-secret misappropriation.

Fitbit counterattacked, naming BodyMedia a respondent in its own ITC complaint (337-TA-973, Dec. 2015) and as patent owner in PTAB inter partes reviews (IPR2016-00543, -00545, -00707, filed Feb.–Mar. 2016). Outcomes were mixed: some claims were held ineligible under §101 at the ITC, while the Board declined to institute certain Fitbit IPRs. These matters formed part of the 2015–16 Fitbit–Jawbone wearable disputes across the ITC, N.D. Cal. and the PTAB. After Jawbone's 2017 liquidation, the BodyMedia patents were dispersed among successor assignees (e.g., Aliph Inc., MacGyver Acquisition LLC, Project Paris Acquisition LLC).

Note: employee/revenue figures are not independently verified beyond press reporting; BodyMedia no longer operates as a going concern.

Watchlist

Get alerted when BodyMedia, Inc. sues again.

Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when BodyMedia, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.

Filing activity

2012: 1 case'12'13'142015: 2 cases2'15
Cases filed per year with BodyMedia, Inc. as plaintiff.

AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone et al. v. Fitbit, Inc. et al.

terminated / no violation
Docket:
337-TA-963
Filed:
2015-07-07
Terminated:
2016-10-20

Section 337 investigation concerning activity tracking devices. The '707 patent claims 19, 23, and 24 were asserted along with U.S. Patents 8,398,546, 8,446,275, 8,529,811, 8,793,522, and 8,961,413. The Commission terminated the investigation on October 20, 2016, finding no violation and issuing no exclusion order.

AliphCom et al. v. Fitbit, Inc.

dismissed with prejudice
Docket:
5:15-cv-02579-HSG
Filed:
2015-06-10
Terminated:
2017-12-21

Parallel district court action by AliphCom and BodyMedia against Fitbit. The court granted Jawbone's motion to stay on Dec. 30, 2015 pending the ITC proceeding, and the case was later dismissed with prejudice by stipulated order on Dec. 21, 2017. Narrative reports this action involved the same patents/issues as ITC 337-TA-963 but could not independently confirm which of the six patents appeared in the district-court complaint.

BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc.

terminated/settled
Docket:
1:12-cv-00133
Filed:
2012-02-02

BodyMedia, Inc. asserted U.S. Patent 6,605,038 and several related patents against Basis Science, Inc. in the District of Delaware. Basis Science answered and counterclaimed, moved to stay pending reexamination and to transfer venue to the Northern District of California, and the case terminated without a merits ruling; it was resolved privately in connection with Basis Science's acquisition by Intel.