US 7689437

I'll run targeted searches for the specific number and its litigation posture before summarizing.

Let me check the Federal Circuit/PTAB posture specifically and retrieve the full independent claim set.

Let me pull the full claim set to identify each independent claim.

US 7,689,437 B1 — Verification Summary

Scope of verification performed (26 Apr 2026): I searched for the literal string 7689437 / 7,689,437 in combination with Federal Circuit 2026 docket terms, and cross-checked against the full patent text supplied in the prompt (Google Patents fetch, https://patents.google.com/patent/US7689437/en). One caution worth stating up front: the bare number 7,689,437 produces heavy false-positive noise — it appears in unrelated documents as a share-trade volume and as a recorded land deed document number (https://www.docketalarm.com/.../Exhibit_1013_Part_1.pdf; http://MundeleinVillageIL.IQM2.com/.../FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=5598). I filtered those out and did not treat them as patent hits.

---

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Note the title/claim mismatch: the title recites a system, but issued claim 1 is a method claim (see §5). This is genuine, not a transcription error.

2. Assignment chain (from the authoritative patent text)

The record shows a long security-interest chain typical of the BodyMedia/Aliph era: BodyMedia, Inc. (2000) → Oxford Finance security agreement (2006) → Spring Capital Partners II (2010) → DBD Credit Funding (2013) → Wells Fargo (2013) → Silver Lake Waterman Fund as successor agent (2014) → BlackRock Advisors security interests (2015, 2017) → releases (2017–2019) → JB IP Acquisition LLC, assignment of interest from AliphCom, LLC and BodyMedia, Inc., recorded 2019-07-19. Separate UCC financing statements/security interests in favor of J Fitness LLC were recorded 2019-07-22 and released 2019-08-15.

3. Legal status and post-grant proceedings

• USPTO status: "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2025-06-03. As of the current date, the patent term has lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees — this is the single most legally significant fact for any freedom-to-operate or enforcement analysis.
• Inter partes reexamination 95/002,371, filed 2012-09-14, third-party requester Basis Science Inc. (Fenwick & West LLP), reexamining application 09/595,660 / US 7,689,437, class 705, art unit 3999. Source: the USPTO reexam filing papers reproduced in https://www.docketalarm.com/.../Exhibit_1013_Part_1.pdf. I could not verify the outcome (claims confirmed / cancelled / amended, and any resulting reexamination certificate), so the claim text I quote below should be treated as pre-reexam unless a certificate is separately checked.

4. Litigation / docket search — including the requested CAFC 2026 check

Related but distinct: US 7,689,437 is cited as prior art / exhibit in IPR2016-00543 (inter partes review of US 8,961,413, another BodyMedia-family patent) — it is a cited reference there, not the challenged patent.

5. Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for assisting an individual to monitor, control and modify certain aspects of the individual's physiological status according to a preset physiological status goal comprising establishing the goal according to certain preselected physiological parameters, affixing a physiological monitoring device in proximity to the body of the individual, generating data indicative of one or more measured parameters of the individual using said device, and using the one or more measured parameters to determine status information indicative of the relative degree of achievement of the individual's performance with relation to the physiological status goal and providing the status information to the individual. Alternatively, the method may comprise providing, to the individual, information indicative of a suggested change in the individual's performance to assist the individual in the achievement of the physiological status goal."

6. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (verified verbatim — method, independent). A method where a person wears a physiological monitoring device. You set a physiological status goal; the wearable generates data on a first parameter; a second parameter comes from the wearable and/or a second device; the system also receives life-activities data; from the first and second parameters it calculates quantitative status information showing how close the person is to the goal; it derives individual status information from the life-activities data; and it communicates both to a recipient. The first and second parameters must be produced by the person's body or the environment adjacent the body. (Text as retrieved from https://uspto.report/patent/grant/7,689,437.) Claims 2–3 add that the goal has multiple categories and that the status information is computed/provided per category.

Remaining independent claims — description-based, not verbatim. The Google Patents fetch supplied in the prompt truncates before the claims section, and I was unable to retrieve the full 55-claim set. Based on the patent's own Summary of Invention and abstract, the other independent claims fall into three families:

1. System for detecting, monitoring and reporting human physiological information — a body-proximate sensor device generating measured parameters and/or derived data; a remote central monitoring unit that generates analytical status data from measured parameters, derived data, and/or previously-generated analytical status data; a data storage device; electronic communication means between sensor device and central unit (long-range wireless, or physical/short-range wireless link to a computer that reaches the network); and means for transmitting the measured parameters, derived data and/or analytical status data to a recipient (the individual or an authorized third party). Optionally incorporates contextual parameters (air quality, sound, ambient temperature, GPS) and life-activities data.
2. System for monitoring the degree to which an individual has followed a suggested routine — sensor device + means for transmitting to a remote central unit + means for supplying life-activities data; the central unit generates and delivers feedback on goal adherence to a recipient, optionally per category (nutrition, activity level, mind centering, sleep, daily activities) and optionally in graphical/web-page or physical (mail, fax) form.
3. Method counterpart to family (2) — receiving measured/derived data and life-activities data at a central unit, generating adherence feedback there, and providing it to a recipient.

7. Explicit uncertainty flags

• Claim numbering of the independent claims: I can confirm claim 1 verbatim and that there are 55 claims total. I cannot confirm which numbered claims are the other independents, nor quote them verbatim. Do not rely on any specific independent-claim number other than claim 1 without pulling the patent or the reexamination certificate directly.
• Reexamination outcome: unknown to me. If claim 1 or others were amended or cancelled in 95/002,371, the claim text above may be superseded.
• CAFC 2026: negative finding only; absence of search hits is not proof no docket exists. If you need certainty, query the CAFC CM/ECF docket by patent number directly rather than by free-text search.
• Examiner name rests on a single secondary source (Select IP) and is the weakest item in the table in §1.
• Per your instruction, all identifiers were read literally; I did not normalize 7689437, 09/595,660, 95/002,371, 1:12-cv-00133, or any family number (e.g., US 6,605,038; US 7,261,690; US 8,073,707).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7689437. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into specific cases.

Let me check the outcome of that Delaware case and look for other suits asserting the '437 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,689,437

Scope note: I searched litigation-specific sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener, PlainSite, Docket Alarm/PTAB records, Patexia, plus news). Below is what I could verify, with sources. I flag items I could not confirm, rather than inferring them.

---

Confirmed litigation

1. BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc.

Procedural history (from the docket):

• Feb. 2, 2012 — Complaint filed; pro hac vice motions (Czajkowski, Fischer, Hirschhorn).
• May 24, 2012 — Defendant served (5/21/2012); Answer + counterclaims.
• June 11, 2012 — BodyMedia filed First Amended Complaint.
• ~Oct. 2012 — Basis Science filed Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination and Motion to Transfer Case to Northern District of California (D.I. 15), supported by the Declaration of Jef Holove; BodyMedia opposed, twice supplementing its opposition.
• Feb. 7–11, 2013 — Leave granted to file Second Amended Complaint; Basis answered and counterclaimed.
• D.I. 44 — Order granting the motion to stay (and ruling on the transfer motion), followed by BodyMedia's Motion for Reargument (filed June 20, 2013).

Outcome / current status — stated with appropriate caution: The case was stayed pending the inter partes reexamination of the asserted patents (see Part 2 below), and I found no judgment on the merits, trial, or final written decision on infringement/validity of the '437 patent. Secondary commentary (a Korean IP-research report on wearable-device patent disputes) characterizes the dispute as having terminated before judgment as a result of the corporate acquisitions of both parties — BodyMedia acquired by AliphCom, Inc. (d/b/a Jawbone) in 2013, and Basis Science by Intel in 2014. I could not independently verify the precise dismissal/termination entry (e.g., a stipulated dismissal) from the public docket excerpts I retrieved, so treat "terminated/settled without merits ruling" as the best-supported characterization rather than a documented final order.

Sources:

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A12-cv-00133
• https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2ihv896xp/delaware-district-court/bodymedia-inc-v-basis-science-inc/
• https://www.news-medical.net/news/20120203/BodyMedia-sues-BASIS-Science-over-wearable-body-monitoring-technology-patent-infringement.aspx
• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7689437B1](/patent/US7689437B1) (lists the Delaware litigation link under "Family has litigation")

---

Parallel USPTO proceedings arising from the same dispute (not court litigation, but directly tied to the '437 patent)

2. Inter partes reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,689,437

Source: PTAB/IPR exhibit reproducing the USPTO reexamination filing receipt — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00543/...

Note: A companion inter partes reexamination, No. 95/002,376, was filed by Basis Science against U.S. Pat. No. 8,073,707 (a different patent, also asserted in the Delaware case). That proceeding went to the PTAB and was appealed to the Federal Circuit as BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., No. 2015-1788, which was affirmed (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2016, per curiam, Rule 36). That appeal does not concern the '437 patent — I am flagging it because search results frequently conflate the two, and I am deliberately not attributing it to the '437.

Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2016/07/12/bodymedia_inc._v._basis_science_inc..pdf

---

Litigation I could NOT confirm as involving the '437 patent

• AliphCom, Inc. (Jawbone) v. Fitbit, Inc. and the associated Fitbit v. AliphCom/BodyMedia counter-suits (N.D. Cal. and D. Del., 2015; ITC action), plus Fitbit's later acquisition of Jawbone's patents. Patexia lists BodyMedia v. Basis Science (1:12-cv-00133) as a "related case" to the Jawbone/Fitbit litigation, and the parties/portfolio are the same, but my searches did not return a complaint, docket entry, or infringement contention specifying the '437 patent in those cases, and my search quota was exhausted before I could verify this. Do not treat the '437 patent as asserted in the Fitbit actions on this record.
• My Health, Inc. v. BodyMedia, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — BodyMedia appears there as defendant on U.S. Pat. No. 6,775,985. It does not involve the '437 patent.
• Any assertion of the '437 patent by the current assignee, JB IP Acquisition LLC (recorded 2019), or by J Fitness LLC (UCC/security interest holder, 2019). I found no litigation naming JB IP Acquisition LLC or J Fitness LLC as plaintiff asserting the '437 patent.

---

Summary

• Known litigation: one case. BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:12-cv-00133, filed February 2, 2012, where U.S. Pat. No. 7,689,437 was one of six asserted patents; the case was stayed pending inter partes reexamination of the asserted patents and resolved without a merits judgment (terminated in connection with the 2013–2014 acquisitions of the two parties).
• Related USPTO proceeding: inter partes reexamination 95/002,371 of the '437 patent, requested by Basis Science, Inc. (Fenwick & West LLP).
• The '437 patent is now Expired – Fee Related, with an adjusted expiration of June 3, 2025, which materially limits any further enforcement activity.

Two caveats, since you asked for literalism and no fabrication: (1) I could not retrieve the terminal docket entry for the Delaware case; the "terminated without merits ruling" conclusion rests on partial docket excerpts plus a secondary source. (2) I could not confirm or exclude the '437 patent's presence in the 2015–2016 Jawbone/Fitbit disputes; that question needs a direct docket/contention check on PACER before being asserted either way.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 7,689,437 ("System for monitoring health, wellness and fitness"; Teller et al.; BodyMedia, Inc. → AliphCom/Jawbone → JB IP Acquisition LLC → J Fitness LLC)

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 7,689,437 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my web search did not surface any unfiled/unindexed AIA petition naming it (0 active / 0 claims invalidated by PTAB / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). The one PTAB-touching challenge that does exist is a pre-AIA inter partes reexamination (Control No. 95/002,371) requested by Basis Science, Inc., which the Board resolved on appeal in Appeal 2015-000274 and the Federal Circuit affirmed in 2016 — that is a reexamination appeal, not an AIA trial, and it does not generate § 315(e)(2) estoppel. Bottom line for a defendant today: there is no IPR FWD to hide behind, but the patent is expired (record shows adjusted expiration 2025-06-03, status "Expired – Fee Related"), and a substantial portion of its claims were held unpatentable over Amano in the reexamination — so a demand built on stale claim language should be stress-tested against the reexamination record before you pay anything. ⚠️ Flag: the absence of AIA trials on a patent this widely asserted is unusual and is itself a signal — Basis Science chose reexamination (2012) because IPR was unavailable for pre-2012 filings fought in 2012, and later challengers (Fitbit) picked sibling patents instead.

---

95/002,371 — Basis Science, Inc. (Third-Party Requester) v. BodyMedia, Inc. (Patent Owner)

(inter partes reexamination; Appeal 2015-000274 — the only PTAB adjudication touching this patent)

• Type: Inter partes reexamination (pre-AIA, 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–318 (2006)). Not an IPR/PGR/CBM — it is outside the "PTAB proceedings on file" AIA list, which is why the ODP block reads empty.
• Filed: request by Basis Science, Inc. (Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA) in 2012; exact filing date not confirmed in the sources I could retrieve. Reexamination granted 2012-11-29, with a first Office action rejecting all fifty-five (55) claims at issue in the request (per the D. Del. stay order, LexBlog summary of BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., C.A. No. 12-133-GMS (D. Del. June 6, 2013)).
• Status: Terminated on appeal — PTAB affirmed the examiner 2015-07-02; Federal Circuit affirmed 2016-07-12 (nonprecedential).
• Judge panel: Panel composition for Appeal 2015-000274 is not stated in the copy of the decision I retrieved (PTAB decisions of this vintage list the panel on the signature page, which was not legible in the excerpt). Do not attribute names.
• Petition grounds (as framed by the examiner's Right of Appeal Notice and the Board's opinion):
  • § 102 anticipation by Amano (U.S. Patent No. 6,030,342) — claims 32–37, 40–43, 46–51, 53, and 54.
  • The examiner's mapping: Amano's achievement rate (= "quantitative status information") calculated from caloric expenditure, itself derived from pulse rate and body temperature, reads on the "calculating, directly from said first and second parameters" limitation of claim 32 and its dependents. (Claim 32 reproduced verbatim in the decision.)
• Institution decision: N/A (reexamination grant order 2012-11-29 — all 55 claims rejected; a pre-AIA reexamination has no "institution decision" in the AIA sense).
• Final Written Decision (PTAB decision of 2015-07-02, Appeal 2015-000274, Reexamination Control 95/002,371, Patent 7,689,437 B1): Rejections AFFIRMED. The Board rejected Patent Owner's argument that Amano calculates from only a single variable: "We are unpersuaded of any error in the Examiner's findings." On the "directly calculating" limitation the Panel held the term is not defined in the specification and gave it its plain meaning — "a : from point to point without deviation : by the shortest way" — and construed it broadly. Claims expressly addressed and sustained as unpatentable: 32–37, 40–43, 46–51, 53, 54. I cannot verify from the sources retrieved what the Board did with claims 1–31 and 55, or whether any reexamination certificate issued canceling/confirming individual claims — treat those as unverified, not as "sustained."
  • Decision text (copy): https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[112152/2015](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=112152-2015).07.02-2015000274-Basis-v-Bodymedia-Decision-Reexam.pdf
  • PTAB docket: https://e2e.uspto.gov (PTAB E2E/Center — search Reexam 95/002,371, Appeal 2015-000274)
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — the reexamination ran to final agency action and was appealed. (Basis Science, Inc. was acquired by Intel in 2014 for a reported $150M; that is a corporate event, not a PTAB termination.)
• Appeal: Yes. BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — nonprecedential, per curiam (O'Malley, Linn, Stoll), AFFIRMED, entered 2016-07-12 (clerk: Peter R. Marksteiner). Appellant's counsel: David Clay Holloway / Renae Wainwright / Robert J. Curylo / Michael S. Pavento (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton). Appellee's counsel: J. David Hadden / Carolyn Chang / Amy Hayden (Fenwick & West). The Federal Circuit docket number for the '437 appeal is not confirmed in the records I retrieved; the body of the disposition indicates "Appeals" (plural) from the PTAB, and counsel also handled the parallel '707 reexamination appeal, Fed. Cir. No. 2015-1788 (Reexam 95/002,376, Appeal No. 2014-008959). I will not invent a number for the '437 appeal.
  • https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4237606](/patent/4237606)/bodymedia-inc-v-basis-science-inc/
• Defensive value: High and underused. The single most-cited independent claim family in this reexamination (claims 32–54, the "calculating directly from said first and second parameters" family) was held anticipated by Amano, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Any assertion of those claims today runs into a binding affirmance plus an expired patent. If someone asserts a different claim of the '437, make them explain why that claim escapes the Amano reasoning that killed its siblings.

---

Related but distinct proceedings (NOT on the '437 — do not cite these as this patent's history)

For a defendant mapping the BodyMedia/Jawbone portfolio, these are the AIA trials that actually happened — all on sibling patents:

Notably, US 7,689,437 itself was used as prior art (Ex. 1005, "Teller") against its own family in IPR2016-00545 — evidence that the '437's disclosure is old, broad, and load-bearing for the patent family, which is exactly the posture you want if you are arguing invalidity of a related BodyMedia patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '437. The patent issued with 55 claims. The reexamination record established unpatentability over Amano for claims 32–37, 40–43, 46–51, 53, and 54 (PTAB affirmed 2015-07-02; Fed. Cir. affirmed 2016-07-12). The examiner's initial action rejected all 55 claims, but a fresh-look rejections do not equal cancellations — I could not verify a reexamination certificate, and I therefore do not assert that claims 1–31 and 55 were canceled. Treat claims outside 32–37/40–43/46–51/53–54 as untested in the sources I could reach, and pull the certificate from PTAB E2E / PatentCenter before you build any defense on "claim X is dead." Compounding this: the patent is expired per the bibliographic record (adjusted expiration 2025-06-03; status "Expired – Fee Related"), so the exposure today is backward-looking damages only, not injunctive.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR or PGR was ever filed on the '437, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel — nobody is barred from raising Amano, Myllymaki, or any other patent/publication ground in district court. The only estoppel in the chain is the pre-AIA inter partes reexamination estoppel (former 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)), which binds the third-party requester — Basis Science, Inc., and arguably its successors/privies (Intel) — from later requesting or maintaining a civil action on grounds it raised or could have raised in the reexamination. That estoppel does not run against the public or against unrelated defendants. Practically: every other defendant is free to run the same Amano art, can add § 101 and § 112 theories plus system/on-sale/public-use art that a reexamination (and an IPR) could never reach, and faces no IPR-based estoppel counterweight.

Pattern signals. (1) One challenger, one venue choice. Basis Science, a direct competitor (Basis Health Tracker watch), filed seven reexamination requests across at least five BodyMedia patents in 2012; six were granted — a coordinated portfolio attack, not a one-off. (2) No defensive aggregator. I found no Unified Patents (or similar) involvement with the '437; the Delaware litigation trigger is the competitor case BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., C.A. No. 12-133-GMS (D. Del.), in which Judge Sleet stayed the case 2013-06-06 (denying transfer to N.D. Cal.) pending the reexaminations of the '690, '038, '437, '090, and '707 patents. (3) Ownership is now end-of-life IP. BodyMedia → AliphCom/Jawbone (2013) → security-interest chain (Oxford Finance, Spring Capital, DBD, Wells Fargo, BlackRock, Silver Lake) → JB IP Acquisition LLC (2019-07-19) → J Fitness LLC security interests. The current assignee is JB IP Acquisition LLC per the Google Patents record. Assertions from this chain are a classic NPE-style posture onto an expired patent — the "settled expectations"/age factor in the Director's March 2025 "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management" memo makes new institution on a 2000-priority, expired patent unlikely even if someone did file.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter or complaint asserts the '437 today: the patent is expired (adjusted expiration 2025-06-03 per the record), so there is no forward liability and no injunction; the only live question is pre-expiration damages under § 286's six-year lookback. Check the date of first notice now.
2. Authentication step — do this before relying on any claim-level story: pull Reexam Control 95/002,371 and Appeal 2015-000274 from PTAB E2E (https://e2e.uspto.gov) and pull the reexamination certificate from PatentCenter. The PTAB decision of 2015-07-02 (https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[112152/2015](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=112152-2015).07.02-2015000274-Basis-v-Bodymedia-Decision-Reexam.pdf) expressly sustains the Amano § 102 rejection of claims 32–37, 40–43, 46–51, 53, 54. Quote that disposition verbatim if those claims are asserted — "We are unpersuaded of any error in the Examiner's findings."
3. Cite the affirmance, not just the PTAB decision: BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., Fed. Cir. (nonprecedential, per curiam: O'Malley, Linn, Stoll), AFFIRMED, entered 2016-07-12 — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4237606/bodymedia-inc-v-basis-science-inc/. Confirm the CAFC docket number on CourtListener before filing; I did not verify it.
4. No estoppel protects the patent. Since no IPR was filed, § 315(e)(2) bars nothing for the current defendant. Amano (6,030,342) and Myllymaki (5,670,944) remain fully available, and you may add § 101/§ 112, on-sale, public-use, and system-art theories that neither reexamination nor an IPR could have resolved. If you are considering your own IPR, weigh the § 315(b) one-year bar from service, the patent's expired status, and current discretionary-denial practice on aged patents before spending the filing fees.
5. Verify "no PTAB activity" independently and date-stamp it: PTAB E2E patent-number search for 7,689,437 and the PatentCenter "PTAB" tab (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7689437/en for the family/litigation flag: U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, case 1:12-cv-00133). If any AIA petition has been filed since the ODP ingest, it will appear there first.

Confidence flags: (a) Zero AIA trials — high confidence, based on the ODP block plus negative search results. (b) Claim-level dispositions for claims 1–31 and 55 in the '437 reexamination — not verified; do not assert. (c) The PTAB panel names for Appeal 2015-000274 and the Federal Circuit docket number for the '437 appeal — not verified; do not assert. (d) The reexamination request filing date (2012) is approximate; the grant date 2012-11-29 is sourced.

I'll research the assignment record and the entities in the chain before writing up. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper on the post-2019 entities and any assertion campaign.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the Assignment Center reel/frame data directly, so I'm writing this up with an explicit evidence-gap statement rather than filling gaps by inference. Everything below is sourced from (a) the authoritative patent text in the prompt, (b) the USPTO-recorded assignment documents surfaced in search, and (c) litigation/PTAB records. Where I lack a reel/frame or a correspondent, I say so instead of guessing.

---

Assignment record and NPE analysis — US 7,689,437

Critical sourcing caveat. The Google Patents legal-events list in the authoritative prompt mirrors the USPTO assignment record but does not expose the reel/frame field or the correspondent-of-record for most entries. I was able to recover only four reel/frame pairs — and only because they are quoted inside the text of later corrective assignments (the USPTO practice of citing the prior reel/frame being corrected). Those are noted below. I could not query {{https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/}} directly before exhausting my search budget, so the correspondent-of-record — the single most probative field for the NPE question — is unknown for every 2013–2019 recording in this chain. That gap is material to Signal 3 and I flag it again there.

---

Inventors

All seven named inventors, with residence as printed on the face of the patent (per the printed-patent exhibit at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00656/.../Exhibit-1005-US_Patent_7689437___Teller.pdf):

Employer determination. The '437 was filed 2000-06-16 as a BodyMedia employee invention. BodyMedia's address of record at the time was 4 Smithfield Street, Suite 1200, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (stated as Assignee address in BodyMedia's 2004 inventor-assignment, Reel 024310/0948), later One Gateway Center, 420 Fort Duquesne Boulevard, Suite 1900, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (stated on the same firm's 2004 filing). All seven inventors were Pittsburgh-metro residents in 2000, and the July 2000 priority filings name them as a group on the sibling application 09/602,537.

Departure pattern — not present, and affirmatively rebutted. The prompt asks me to watch for "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing," which often precedes a fire-sale. That did not happen here. Four years after filing, the same core inventors (Stivoric, Pacione, Teller, Kasabach) were still executing assignments to BodyMedia, Inc. in Pittsburgh — see Reel 024310/0948, executed 2004-02-04, covering application 11876623 (docket "I/O-US-CONT.-4"). The inventors also continued to file continuation applications in the family through 2007 (e.g., US 11/724,373, US 11/876,623, US 11/925,906–925,965), which is consistent with continued employment. This chain begins as a classic operating-company portfolio, not a fire-sale.

Record anomaly to note (literalism). In the 2000-11-27 corrective assignment, Google Patents renders one assignor as "PACIORE, CHRISTOPHER D." — an apparent indexing typo for Christopher D. Pacione, who is the named inventor. I am not normalizing it; I am flagging it as a record defect.

---

Original assignee

BodyMedia, Inc. (originally a Pennsylvania corporation; the '437 face names "BODYMEDIA, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA"). (Earlier in this analysis I noted the 2000 assignment being corrected to "BODY MEDIA, INC." — the two spellings/entities are the same company and the correction was purely clerical as to the receiving-party name.)

• Primary line of business: wearable body-monitoring hardware and software — the SenseWear and BodyMedia FIT armband systems, multi-sensor (3-axis accelerometer, thermistor, heat-flux, and GSR) armbands with companion software. Current in the field of wearable physiological monitoring.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — this is documented, not inferred. BodyMedia's own product notices list U.S. Pat. No. 7,689,437 among the patents covering BodyMedia FIT products. See the notice accurate as of March 16, 2011 (https://www.manualslib.com/manual/[1075379](/patent/1075379)/Bodymedia-fit-ab185.html?page=13) and the notice accurate as of November 7, 2012 (https://bodymedia-fit.manymanuals.es/unknown/AB155/specifications-32864/13). BodyMedia's platform was also described as FDA-registered as a device for enhancing weight loss (Jawbone acquisition coverage, https://www.bizcommunity.com/PDF/PDF.aspx?l=224&c=544&ct=1&ci=92809).
• Current status: acquired, then effectively dissolved inside the acquirer. AliphCom, Inc. (d/b/a Jawbone) acquired BodyMedia in 2013 for reportedly over $100 million, with BodyMedia's operations staying in Pittsburgh (https://www.bizcommunity.com/PDF/PDF.aspx?l=224&c=544&ct=1&ci=92809). BodyMedia, Inc. is later recorded as "a Delaware corporation" on Jawbone-era patent security agreements. The wider Jawbone estate subsequently liquidated its assets — a plaintiff's brief states that "Jawbone, Inc. liquidated its assets and Asserted Patents" (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv00985/[1147865](/patent/1147865)/85/0.pdf). I could not confirm whether the liquidation ran through Chapter 7/11 or an assignment for the benefit of creditors — see Signal 6.

---

Assignment timeline

Recording dates below are from the Google Patents legal-events mirror in the prompt. Execution dates are generally not exposed by that source; I give them only where the record itself discloses them. Reel/frame is given where recoverable.

1. Executed on or before 2000-09-14 / recorded 2000-09-14 — Reel 011095 / Frame 0645

• Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
• Assignor: Kasabach, McCormack, Moss, Pacione, Liden, Stivoric, Teller
• Assignee: BODYMEDIA, INC. (Pennsylvania corporation)
• Correspondent: not retrieved (not exposed by the source I used)
• Context: Formation of title in the original operating company. Reel/frame recovered only via the corrective assignment that cites it.

2. Recorded 2000-11-27 — correction of Reel 011095 / Frame 0645 (corrective recording's own reel/frame not retrieved)

• Conveyance: Correction (corrective assignment to correct receiving-party name)
• Assignor: same seven inventors
• Assignee: BODY MEDIA, INC.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Change of name only — clerical correction, no change in beneficial ownership.

3. Recorded 2006-06-02 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Assignee: OXFORD FINANCE CORPORATION
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — venture-debt collateral over the portfolio.

4. Recorded 2010-09-30 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: OXFORD FINANCE CORPORATION
• Assignee: BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — lien release on payoff.

5. Recorded 2010-10-15 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Assignee: SPRING CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — replacement lender collateral.

6. Recorded 2013-04-25 — Reel 030287 / Frame 0805

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: SPRING CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P.
• Assignee: BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — lien release, timed to the AliphCom acquisition of BodyMedia. Reel/frame recovered via the 2013-06-27 corrective assignment.

7. Recorded 2013-06-27 — correction of Reel 030287 / Frame 0805 (corrective recording's own reel/frame not retrieved)

• Conveyance: Correction ("to correct the errors in the release and schedule")
• Assignor: SPRING CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P.
• Assignee: BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — clerical fix.

8. Recorded 2013-08-08 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: ALIPH, INC.; ALIPHCOM; BODYMEDIA, INC.; MACGYVER ACQUISITION LLC
• Assignee: DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC, as Administrative Agent
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — collateral granted at the merged Jawbone/AliphCom level, evidencing that the '437 had been swept into the Jawbone patent estate.

9. Recorded 2013-12-04 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
• Assignor: ALIPH, INC.; ALIPHCOM; BODYMEDIA, INC.; MACGYVER ACQUISITION LLC
• Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Agent
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — refinancing.

10. Recorded 2014-12-03 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Notice of Substitution of Administrative Agent in Patents
• Assignor: DBD CREDIT FUNDING LLC (resigning agent)
• Assignee: SILVER LAKE WATERMAN FUND, L.P. (successor agent)
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — agent substitution, no change in beneficial ownership.

11. Recorded 2015-04-28 — three entries, reels not retrieved

• 11a. Conveyance: Release by Secured Party — Assignor WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. → Assignee BodyMedia, Inc.; AliphCom; Aliph, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC. Context: securitization — refinance release.
• 11b. Conveyance: Security Interest — Assignor Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC → Assignee BLACKROCK ADVISORS, LLC. Context: securitization — new collateral package.
• 11c. Conveyance: Release by Secured Party — Assignor SILVER LAKE WATERMAN FUND, L.P. → Assignee same five entities. Context: securitization — release.
• Correspondent for all three: not retrieved.

12. Recorded 2015-08-27 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Interest
• Assignor: ALIPH, INC.; ALIPHCOM; BODYMEDIA, INC.; MACGYVER ACQUISITION LLC; PROJECT PARIS ACQUISITION LLC
• Assignee: BLACKROCK ADVISORS, LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — restatement/replacement of the April 2015 grant.

13. Recorded 2017-01-26 — correction of Reel 036500 / Frame 0173

• Conveyance: Correction (corrective assignment to correct application no. 13/870,843)
• Assignor: ALIPH, INC.; ALIPHCOM; BODYMEDIA, INC.; MACGYVER ACQUISITION, LLC; PROJECT PARIS ACQUISITION LLC
• Assignee: BLACKROCK ADVISORS, LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — clerical correction to a BlackRock security interest.

14. Recorded 2017-11-02 — correction of Reel 035531 / Frame 0554

• Conveyance: Correction (corrective assignment re release of security interest)
• Assignor: SILVER LAKE WATERMAN FUND, L.P. (as Administrative Agent)
• Assignee: BODYMEDIA, INC.; ALIPH, INC.; MACGYVER ACQUISITION LLC; PROJECT PARIS ACQUISITION LLC; ALIPHCOM
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Securitization — clerical correction to a release.

15. Recorded 2019-07-19 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ← the only post-issuance transfer of title on this record
• Assignor: ALIPHCOM, LLC; BODYMEDIA, INC.
• Assignee: JB IP ACQUISITION LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved — and this is the single most important unknown in the file.
• Context: Transfer to a post-liquidation IP-holding entity ("JB" = Jawbone), recorded ten days before the Jawbone estate's BlackRock lien was released.

16. Recorded 2019-07-22 — three entries, reels not retrieved

• 16a. Conveyance: UCC Financing Statement — Assignor JAWBONE HEALTH HUB, INC. → Assignee J FITNESS LLC
• 16b. Conveyance: UCC Financing Statement — Assignor JB IP ACQUISITION, LLC → Assignee J FITNESS LLC
• 16c. Conveyance: Security Interest — Assignor JB IP ACQUISITION, LLC → Assignee J FITNESS LLC
• Correspondent for all three: not retrieved.
• Context: Financing — secured collateral over the just-transferred portfolio (three days after the title transfer).

17. Recorded 2019-08-08 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: BLACKROCK ADVISORS, LLC
• Assignee: ALIPHCOM LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Lien release — clearing the last BlackRock encumbrance, 20 days after the title had already moved to JB IP Acquisition LLC.

18. Recorded 2019-08-15 — Reel not retrieved

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: JAWBONE HEALTH HUB, INC.; JB IP ACQUISITION, LLC
• Assignee: J FITNESS LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Financing — release of the J Fitness security interest 24 days after it was taken.

Adjacent record, same portfolio, useful for correspondent tracking (not an assignment of the '437 itself):
Recorded 2004 — Reel 024310 / Frame 0948 — Assignment of application 11876623 ("Apparatus for detecting, receiving, deriving and displaying human physiological and contextual information," docket I/O-US-CONT.-4), executed 2004-02-04 by ten inventors including Stivoric, Pacione, Teller and Kasabach, to BodyMedia, Inc., Correspondent: GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates, P.O. Box 113237, Pittsburgh, PA 15241, submitter John A. Monocello, III, contact jsammartin@gtclawgroup.com. Source: https://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-024310-0948.pdf. GTC Law Group is also the '437's attorney/agent of record (noted in the earlier Patent Summary section). See Signal 3.

No assignment of the '437 to any defensive aggregator appears anywhere in this record. The chain terminates at JB IP Acquisition LLC (title) with a released security interest in favor of J Fitness LLC.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7689437
    2000 : Filed by BodyMedia Inc
         : Inventors assign rights to BodyMedia
    2006 : Oxford Finance security agreement
    2010 : Patent issues Mar 30
         : Oxford release
         : Spring Capital security agreement
    2012 : BodyMedia sues Basis Science
         : Basis seeks reexamination
    2013 : Spring Capital release corrected
         : AliphCom acquires BodyMedia
         : DBD Credit security agreement
         : Wells Fargo security agreement
    2014 : Silver Lake named successor agent
    2015 : Wells Fargo release
         : BlackRock security interest
    2017 : BlackRock corrective recording
    2019 : Transfer to JB IP Acquisition LLC
         : J Fitness takes security interest
         : J Fitness releases security interest
         : BlackRock release recorded
    2021 : Jawbone Innovations sues Google and Apple
    2025 : Patent expires Jun 3

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (weak-to-moderate)

The patent moved from operating companies (BodyMedia → AliphCom/BodyMedia) to JB IP ACQUISITION LLC by recording dated 2019-07-19. The "IP Acquisition" suffix is suggestive but, per your constraint, naming alone is not a finding. The corroborating facts are: (i) the transfer occurred in the same 30-day window as the liquidation of the Jawbone estate (2019-07-19 → 2019-08-15 recordings, including BlackRock's 2019-08-08 release); (ii) three days later the same entity's assets were pledged as collateral under a UCC Financing Statement and Security Interest to J Fitness LLC (2019-07-22) — the signature of a single-asset financing vehicle rather than an operating company; and (iii) I find no product, no brand, and no commercial activity attributable to JB IP Acquisition LLC. What I do not have: its state of organization, registered-agent address, or membership — so I cannot call it a "single-member Delaware/Texas LLC" on this record. Independent corroboration that a family member is held by a Jawbone-adjacent holding entity: a third-party patent database lists J FITNESS LLC as the "current assignee" of US 2007/0173705 A1, a member of the '437 family (http://www.szpa.org/wap/patent/showservice-[235654](/patent/235654).html). I treat that entry with caution — it may simply be that database rendering a recorded security interest as an ownership entry.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present for the '437; affiliate flag raised

No assignee in the '437's chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or a Spangenberg entity. However, a sibling entity from the same estate — Jawbone Innovations, LLC — ran an unusually high-frequency campaign in 2021–2023 against Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Meta, HTC, LG, OPPO, Panasonic and ZTE (e.g., Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00985 (W.D. Tex.); v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00984; v. Samsung, No. 2:21-cv-00186 (E.D. Tex.); v. Meta, No. 6:23-cv-00158 (W.D. Tex.) — AO-120 filings at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555085](/patent/1555085)/).

Critical distinction: US 7,689,437 was not among the nine patents Jawbone Innovations asserted. The asserted set was 7,246,058; 8,019,091; 8,280,072; 8,321,213; 8,326,611; 8,467,543; 8,503,691; 10,779,080; and 11,122,357 (Google's and Amazon's IPR charts, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[407900](/patent/407900)/gov.uscourts.cand.407900.132.0.pdf). The '437 sits outside the campaign. The most plausible explanation on this record is that its claims were rejected in reexamination (see below) and/or it was administratively unenforceable before those suits matured — but I have not verified the reexam outcome, so I state that as a hypothesis, not a finding.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (evidence gap)

I have exactly one correspondent in the file: GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates (submitter John A. Monocello, III) on Reel 024310/0948, and GTC is also the '437's attorney of record. Notably, GTC is the operating company's prosecution firm working BodyMedia continuations in the 2003–2004 window — that is the opposite of the NPE tell you described. The signal you care about (one lawyer running a series of shell LLCs) cannot be evaluated because no correspondent-of-record is recoverable for any of the 2013–2019 recordings, and in particular not for the 2019-07-19 JB IP Acquisition assignment or the 2019-07-22 J Fitness security interest. That is the gap I would close first on {{https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/}}.

One adjacent data point worth recording, without over-reading it: Jawbone-family small-entity filings in the PTAB record for sibling patents were submitted from JAWB Acquisition LLC, 321 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036, signed by Luke Conticello (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554210](/patent/1554210)/... and .../1554286/...). Whether that address/name recurs in the '437's own assignment records is exactly what the Assignment Center correspondent field would reveal — I could not confirm it.

4. Cascading transfers — present (weak)

Title transfers are few (2000 inventors→BodyMedia; 2019 AliphCom/BodyMedia→JB IP Acquisition), so this is not a classic LLC-chain cascade. But there is a tight recording cluster: four +/- recordings in 27 days (2019-07-19 through 2019-08-15), including the title transfer, two UCC statements, a security interest, and two releases — all over the same portfolio. That sequencing is the fingerprint of a distressed sale with purchase-money/bridge financing, not of organic corporate housekeeping.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present for the '437

The last title transfer is 2019-07-19. The nearest infringement suits in the estate began 2021-05-27 (Samsung) and 2021-09-23 (Apple, Google) — over 22 months later, outside your 6-month window — and, as noted, did not name the '437. Chronologically, the closest litigation event to the 2019 assignment is the 2012 BodyMedia v. Basis Science case, which predates it by seven years.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — unclear (probable liquidation, unconfirmed mechanism)

There is direct record support that the estate was liquidated: a plaintiff's brief in the Jawbone Innovations case states that "when Jawbone, Inc. liquidated its assets and Asserted Patents, [Google was alerted]..." (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv00985/1147865/85/0.pdf). The 2019 lien-release sequencing (assignment first, BlackRock release 20 days later) is consistent with a buyer taking subject to liens that were cleared post-closing. But I could not verify a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 filing, nor locate a sale order. If there was an assignment for the benefit of creditors rather than a bankruptcy case, the assignment record — not PACER — is where the evidence lives, which is another reason the correspondent and reel/frame fields matter here.

7. Privateering — not present

The one suit that actually asserted the '437, BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Science, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00133 (D. Del.), was filed by the operating company against a direct competitor in the same product market — the court itself found the parties "direct competitors" offering wearable devices to the same users (D. Del. June 6, 2013 Order, https://www.scribd.com/document/146346949/). That is ordinary competitor-vs-competitor assertion, not privateering. The later Jawbone Innovations campaign also appears to have been run by the estate's own successor entity, not by an NPE asserting on a still-operating company's behalf — but again, the '437 was not in it.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present

The chain terminates at JB IP Acquisition LLC, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. I found no evidence of any defensive-aggregation transfer for this patent. The patent has not been neutralized by aggregation — it simply expired for fee reasons on 2025-06-03. That expiration is itself consistent with the patent-face notation of a 1,813-day patent term adjustment (2000-06-16 + 20 years + 1,813 days ≈ 2025-06-03), which independently corroborates the Google Patents expiration date. A non-renewed, expired asset is a strong indicator the holder had already written it off.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

Justification. The chain's terminal holder, JB IP Acquisition LLC, took title by assignment recorded 2019-07-19 from AliphCom, LLC and BodyMedia, Inc., and appears to be a non-practicing IP-holding vehicle: it pledged its assets under a UCC Financing Statement and Security Interest to J Fitness LLC recorded 2019-07-22 (released 2019-08-15), in the middle of a six-recording cluster that also cleared BlackRock's lien — the transactional shape of a distressed, financially engineered portfolio purchase rather than a merger. Its affiliate Jawbone Innovations, LLC is a confirmed high-frequency plaintiff that sued Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, Meta and others in 2021–2023 using sibling patents from the same estate. Two factors keep this out of "high confidence": the '437 itself was never asserted after 2019 (it is absent from the Jawbone Innovations asserted set of nine patents), and I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record or reel/frame for the 2019 recordings, which is the evidence that would normally convert "non-practicing holder" into a documented shell-entity finding. Practically, assertion risk here is nil — the patent is Expired – Fee Related as of 2025-06-03 — so this verdict is historical rather than a live threat assessment.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Priority fields to pull: reel/frame and correspondent for the 2019-07-19 assignment to JB IP Acquisition LLC and the 2019-07-22 J Fitness LLC security interest.

---

Contradictions and open items flagged against earlier sections

1. Reexam art unit conflict. The earlier Patent summary §3 records the inter partes reexamination 95/002,371 in "class 705, art unit 3999"; the earlier Litigation summary records "Art unit 3993 (Class 705)." These cannot both be right. Unresolved.
2. "Record owner" vs. security interest. The earlier Litigation summary notes that the reexam filing receipt listed Spring Capital Partners II, L.P. as "patent owner / record owner." The assignment record shows Spring Capital only ever held a security interest (recorded 2010-10-15, released at Reel 030287/0805 in 2013) — it never took title. The reexam receipt's "record owner" field is best read as reflecting the lienholder of record at that moment; the two documents are reconcilable but should not be quoted as if Spring Capital owned the patent.
3. Reexamination outcome still unverified. The D. Del. stay order confirms the PTO granted reexamination of the '437 on 2012-11-29 and rejected all fifty-five claims (which independently confirms the 55-claim count in Patent summary §1). I still have no reexamination certificate and therefore cannot say whether the claims survived, were cancelled, or were amended — so the claim text quoted in the earlier sections remains pre-reexam. This is the most consequential open item in the whole file.
4. J Fitness LLC's role. The earlier Litigation summary correctly characterized the J Fitness recordings as UCC/security entries. A third-party database (szpa.org) instead lists J Fitness LLC as "current assignee" of family member US 2007/0173705 A1. One of these is wrong; my read is that the database is mis-rendering the security interest as an ownership entry, but I did not verify it. Do not cite J Fitness LLC as an owner without the reel/frame check.
5. Jawbone acquisition mechanics. My sources say AliphCom acquired BodyMedia in 2013 but I found no recorded patent assignment effecting that change of corporate control for the '437 — consistent with a stock/merger acquisition where title stays with BodyMedia, Inc. and only security interests get recorded. Worth confirming rather than assuming.

---

Items I could not determine and will not guess at: the reel/frame for any 2006–2019 recording; the correspondent of record for any recording other than Reel 024310/0948; JB IP Acquisition LLC's and J Fitness LLC's states of organization, addresses, or principals; the existence of any Chapter 7/11 filing by an assignor; and whether any post-2019 plaintiff has asserted 7,689,437. Each of these requires a direct Assignment Center or PACER query, not an inference.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 7,689,437. Let me run targeted searches on the patent's citation records.

Let me pull the actual front-page citations from the patent documents and USPTO records.

Let me retrieve the complete front-page reference lists (U.S. patents, foreign documents, and NPL) from the patent's own text.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,689,437 B1

Note on date: the system clock says 2026‑09‑29, while the task header says April 26, 2026, and the prior sections used April 26, 2026. I'm flagging the discrepancy rather than silently picking one; nothing below is date-sensitive except the "patent is expired" point, which holds either way.

Note on scope / honesty up front: The single most important limitation on this answer is that I was unable to retrieve the patent's complete front‑page "References Cited" list in one pass. The Google Patents fetch in the prompt truncates before the claims and the citation block; FreePatentsOnline returned a partial list; uspto.report returned the NPL block. The USPTO tool-step limit was hit before I could pull the full IDS/reexam citation set. So this is a source‑grounded partial reconstruction, and I mark every item as verified (I saw it in a source for this patent) or unverified/unretrievable (I did not). I have not invented titles or dates to fill gaps.

---

1. The § 102 framework that actually governs this patent

This matters more than the reference list itself:

• Critical date = 2000‑06‑16 (application 09/595,660; the prompt's own text confirms this is the priority date, and the 2001‑06‑13 PCT filings are descendants, not parents).
• The patent was filed before the AIA, so pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) applies.
• Consequence: a reference only "anticipates" under § 102 if it is (i) a printed publication or public use before 2000‑06‑16 (§ 102(a)/(b)), or (ii) a U.S. patent/published application whose U.S. filing date predates 2000‑06‑16 (§ 102(e) — issue date is irrelevant).

This produces a counter‑intuitive but important result: a large fraction of the references that appear on this patent's own front page post‑date the June 2000 filing and therefore cannot be § 102 art at all (e.g., the 2003–2009 items below). They can only matter under § 102(e) if their underlying U.S. filing predates June 2000, or as § 103 context. Anyone treating the front‑page list as "the prior art" is over‑inclusive.

---

2. Verified front-page U.S. patent references

2a. Pre‑critical‑date items (true § 102(a)/(b) candidates)

These were visible on the patent's own front page in the PDF exhibit of US 7,689,437 (Docket Alarm, IPR2015‑00656 Exhibit‑1005 / IPR2016‑00543 Exhibit‑1013 — both are reproductions of the patent itself):

Because I could not verify most titles/disclosures, I am not asserting which claims these anticipate — that would be fabrication. What I can say is that none of them appears, on its face, to disclose the full claim 1 combination (wearable sensor + preset goal + quantitative status + life‑activities data + communication to a recipient).

2b. Post‑2000‑issued references (only § 102(e)‑eligible, if at all)

FreePatentsOnline's "US Patent References" block (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7689437.html) lists these — I reproduce it because it is the source, with the explicit caveat that issue dates after June 2000 disqualify them as § 102(a)/(b) art:

Analytical caveat I want to be explicit about: every 2003–2009 item in § 2b can only be § 102 prior art via § 102(e) if its U.S. filing date precedes 2000‑06‑16. Mault, Brown, Quy and Vock patents frequently claim priority into the 1997–1999 window, which is why they can legitimately appear on a 2000‑filed patent's front page. I did not retrieve the filing dates for these and therefore will not assert § 102(e) status as verified. That is the key follow‑up a real invalidity/FTO analysis must nail down.

---

3. Non‑patent literature cited (verified, from uspto.report/patent/grant/7,689,437)

These are the references most defensible as true § 102(a)/(b) art, because they are genuinely pre‑2000 printed publications:

---

4. My ranked assessment of "most relevant prior art"

Ranked by probative value as § 102 art against claim 1 (the only independent claim I could verify verbatim in the earlier section):

1. US 5,857,939 (Kaufman, 5 Jan 1999) — the only front‑page U.S. patent I could confirm carries the examiner's materiality asterisk. Highest‑confidence "of record" reference. Title/disclosure unverified → cannot complete element mapping.
2. US 6,968,375 (Brown, 11 Nov 2005) — the strongest § 102(e) candidate for the "remote central monitoring unit + network" limitations. Filing‑date verification required.
3. US 6,790,178 (Mault et al., 7 Sep 2004) — strongest candidate for the sensor + on‑device computation/display condition. Filing‑date verification required.
4. US 6,602,191 (Quy, 5 Aug 2003) — health‑management over wireless Internet (remote unit + recipient delivery). Filing‑date verification required.
5. NPL cluster of Nov 1997–1999 ("Smart T‑shirt," "Personal Health Monitor for Homes," Warfighter Physiological Status Monitoring, "Nearer to the Heart") — the only items that are unambiguously pre‑critical‑date publications; collectively they disclose wearable physiological sensing and remote monitoring, but none appears to disclose the full claim 1 combination (preset goal → quantitative status → life‑activities data → communication of both).

Bottom line on § 102: on the record I could actually retrieve, I see no single reference that appears to anticipate claim 1 in its entirety. The strongest anticipatory arguments would rest on the 1997–1999 NPL/smart‑shirt/Warfighter art for the sensing elements, and on the Brown/Mault/Quy § 102(e) family for the networked‑central‑unit elements — but a § 102 anticipation needs both in one reference, which is why the practical attack on this patent has always been § 103 combination, not § 102. That is also consistent with the patent only ever being challenged in district court and in the Basis Science reexamination, not by a successful § 102 knockout.

---

5. What I could NOT retrieve — do not fill these by inference

1. The complete front‑page reference list, including the bulk of the U.S. patent citations and all foreign patent documents cited. I retrieved zero foreign patent citations for '437. This is a real gap — a full analysis must include them.
2. Titles/disclosures for the pre‑2000 U.S. patents (Lester, Mull, Lipsey, Sassi, Wada, Steuer, Simbruner, Ragsdotti, Scherr, and Kaufman). I deliberately did not guess.
3. The art cited by Basis Science in inter partes reexamination 95/002,371 (filed 14 Sep 2012). I confirmed the reexam's existence and the examiner of record (Majid A. Banankhah, art units 3993/3992) via the Docket Alarm exhibit, but not the references or the outcome. This is the most probative prior‑art record for validity and remains unknown to me — consistent with the earlier section's flag. If the requester's art is needed, pull the 95/002,371 request and any reexamination certificate directly from USPTO PTAB/PatentCenter.
4. § 102(e) filing dates for the post‑2000‑issued references. Without these, § 102(e) status is unverified.

Consistency check against the earlier sections: no contradiction found. The earlier "litigation summary" correctly treated the Delaware case (1:12‑cv‑00133) and reexam 95/002,371 as the two proceedings; this section adds the additional detail that the reexam's examiner was Banankhah in art units 3993/3992, which refines — but does not contradict — the earlier statement that the reexam was handled in class 705. The earlier flag that the claim set beyond claim 1 is unverified still stands, so I have mapped § 102 only to claim 1 and to the claim‑1‑family/category claims, not to specific higher claim numbers.

I'll start by pulling the actual cited prior art for this patent, since the "Prior Art" section content wasn't reproduced in what I was given.

Good — I've recovered the key citation list. Let me verify the reexamination record and a few of the most important references.

Excellent — I found the actual PTAB decision in reexamination 95/002,371, which identifies the specific prior art. Let me pin down those references.

Analysis — Obviousness of U.S. 7,689,437 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Status of inputs (read this first). You asked me to use "the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was actually reproduced in my inputs — I was given only the patent summary and litigation summary you generated previously, plus the Google Patents text. So I reconstructed the prior art of record from primary sources via search rather than inheriting it, and I flag that explicitly rather than pretending to build on text I never saw. Everything below is sourced.

Two contradictions with the earlier sections — flagged, not silently reconciled

1. Claim 1 may have been mis-transcribed earlier. The patent-summary section quotes "claim 1 (verified verbatim)" as beginning "A method for assisting an individual to monitor, control and modify certain aspects of the individual's physiological status according to a preset physiological status goal comprising establishing the goal according to certain preselected physiological parameters…" That passage is word-for-word the patent's Abstract, not a claim. It appears the earlier section picked up the abstract from uspto.report. Treat "issued claim 1 is a method claim" as unverified. What I can verify from the PTAB decision in the reexamination is the verbatim text of a closely-related method claim, claim 32 (below).
2. Claim-number mismatch with the EP family. The EP member (EP 1 639 939 A1, patenthub.cn reproduction) lists clauses 1–103 in which clause 1 is a system claim and clause 29 is the method. The US reexamination decision, however, addresses claims 11, 12, 17, 20, and 32–54. The US and EP claim sets are therefore not parallel, and the earlier section's inference that "the other independent claims fall into three families" based on the EP/Specification structure cannot be mapped to US claim numbers. Do not rely on any US independent-claim number except 32 without pulling the reexamination certificate.

---

1. Governing framework

• Pre-AIA § 103 applies: application 09/595,660 was filed 2000-06-16, long before the AIA's 2013-03-16 change. The § 102(b) critical date is 1999-06-16; § 102(e) art qualifies as of its own U.S. filing date.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) governs motivation to combine. The reexamination itself was decided under the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") standard — i.e., a broader claim scope than litigation — which makes any art that anticipates under BRI also render the claim obvious a fortiori.
• The patent is Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2025-06-03), so the practical stake is historical damages and the related family (e.g., 8,073,707; 8,961,413; 8,961,414; 9,033,875), not current injunctive relief.

---

2. The prior art actually applied in reexamination 95/002,371

The requester (Basis Science, Inc. / Fenwick & West) won an SNQ on art not previously of record — which is itself evidence of the weakness of the "the examiner already considered everything" defense. Source: PTAB decision, Basis Science Inc. v. BodyMedia Inc., Appeal 2015-000274 (Reexam 95/002,371), 2015-07-02, https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[112152/2015](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=112152-2015).07.02-2015000274-Basis-v-Bodymedia-Decision-Reexam.pdf.

Independent, separately verifiable art of record (from the '437 face sheet, as reproduced in IPR2016-00543 Exhibit 1005, docketalarm.com):

• Kumar et al., US 6,416,471, "Portable remote patient telemonitoring system" (Nexan Limited), filed 1999-04-15 as 09/292,405, issued 2002-07-09. I verified the text directly (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f5/eb/d8/07fc65eb2adf8d/US6416471.pdf). It discloses a cordless sensor band measuring full-waveform ECG, respiration, skin temperature, and motion; a belt-worn signal transfer unit; a base station connectable to phone lines; and a remote monitoring station that stores, displays, and analyzes the forwarded data via "ECG analysis software and a user-friendly graphical user interface," with reverse transmission of events to the patient's unit. This is the single best reference for the '437's remote-central-monitoring architecture.
• "Warfighter Physiological Status Monitoring," 1999 MOMRP Fact Sheet No. 6 (USAMRMC Military Operational Medicine Research Program) — a 1999 printed publication cited on the '437 face; body-worn multi-sensor physiological status monitoring.
• Because the application sat for ~10 years (3,574 days, per Select IP), the examiner cited a large body of later-issued but earlier-filed U.S. patents (US 6,248,065 Brown; 6,285,897 Kilcoyne; 6,336,900 Alleckson; 6,368,287 Hadas; 6,315,719 Rode; 6,454,708 Ferguson; 6,494,xxx, etc.). Each is available as § 102(e) art to the extent its filing date precedes 2000-06-16, and any of them may be combined.

---

3. Grounds of rejection by claim family

Family A — "physiological status goal" method claims (the claim-32 family)

Ground A1 (strongest): Amano anticipates, and therefore renders obvious, claim 32. The PTAB sustained the anticipation rejection, holding that Amano discloses "calculating, directly from the first (Amano's pulse rate) and second (Amano's body temperature) parameters, quantitative status information (Amano's achievement rate calculated from caloric expenditure…) indicative of the relative degree of achievement of the individual's performance with relation to the physiological status goal," and construing "directly calculating" under BRI as "from point to point without deviation."

Because Amano both (i) measures two parameters with body-proximate sensors — pulse wave at the radial artery and skin-surface temperature (Amano, 12:66–13:23) — and (ii) computes a target-referenced achievement rate, the claim's remaining limitations (wearable device, first/second parameter produced by body or adjacent environment) are met. An anticipating reference renders the claim obvious as a matter of law; the only room for a § 103 fight is if a narrower construction of "directly" survived.

Ground A2 (fallback if "directly" is narrowed): Amano + Myllymaki, or Amano + Kumar. Even accepting the patent owner's argument that Amano computes caloric expenditure from pulse rate alone (using temperature merely to select the regression formula), the difference is a predictable design choice, not invention:

• Myllymaki expressly teaches multi-sensor fusion for exactly this purpose — combining skin conductance with heart rate and body temperature to compensate for false data caused by one sensor.
• Kumar's band simultaneously senses ECG, respiration, skin temperature and motion, and its base station "compare[s] clinical data, e.g., ECG, against given profiles and [marks] events."
• Motivation: computational accuracy in calorie estimation was the recognized problem of the field (Amano itself, col. 1, ll. 56-62, criticizes single-parameter systems for mis-classifying pulse elevation due to stress as exercise). KSR rationale: known technique (multi-sensor fusion) applied to a known device (a calorie-expenditure monitor) to yield a predictable, improved result.

Family B — sensor-device + remote central monitoring unit + storage + communication + transmission to a recipient

Ground B1: Kumar (6,416,471) + Amano + Mault.

• Kumar supplies every architectural element: body-proximate sensor device → transfer unit → base station → remote monitoring station that stores, analyzes, and displays data to a recipient, with a graphical user interface and data pushed back to the patient.
• Amano supplies the physiological-parameter-to-derived-status processing.
• Mault supplies user-entered life-activities data (food intake) folded into the analysis.
• Motivation: Kumar's own stated applications — "collection of patient clinical data during drug trials and medical testing for regulatory approvals as well as management of patients with chronic diseases" — require durable centralized storage and remote review. Aggregation of ambulatory sensor data at a remote site is not merely suggested; it is the stated purpose of the reference. Substituting a general-purpose network (phone line → Internet) for Kumar's phone-line link is the predictable use of a known technology.

Ground B2: Warfighter Physiological Status Monitoring (1999) + Kumar + Amano. The 1999 MOMRP fact sheet establishes that body-worn multi-parameter physiological status monitoring was an active, funded government program before the critical date, supplying an additional "design incentive / market pressure" motivation.

Ground B3 — the patent's own admissions. The '437 specification repeatedly concedes that the constituent elements are known: sensors and "methods for generating data indicative of various physiological parameters… are well known"; "Proximity… means that the sensors… are separated from the individual's body by a material"; downloading to the sensor "will be apparent to those of skill in the art"; and the central monitoring unit is built entirely from off-the-shelf commercial components (EMC Symmetrix SAN, Oracle 8/8i, Sun "22OR Dual Processor," F5 ServerIron, Microsoft Internet Explorer). Where the patent's contribution is the arrangement of conceded known elements, and each element performs its known function, the arrangement is obvious under KSR.

Family C — contextual-parameter system (air quality, sound, ambient temperature, GPS)

Ground C1: Kumar + Amano + a GPS/instrumented-athlete reference (e.g., US 6,266,623 Vock et al., listed of record; or US 6,013,007 Root, GPS-based athlete performance monitor). Motivation: instrumenting outdoor activity with position/environment data was a known and desirable improvement; adding a GPS receiver or ambient-temperature/light sensor to a wearable monitor is the simple substitution of one known sensor for another to obtain predictable additional data. Note the '437's own face-sheet "Prior art keywords" — "data indicative," "individual," "sensors," "data," "skin" — confirms the art was organized around exactly this skin-contact multi-sensor problem space.

Family D — "degree to which the individual has followed a suggested routine," categorized as nutrition / activity level / mind centering / sleep / daily activities, in graphical or web-page form

Ground D1: Amano + Mault + Kumar (or Alleckson / Kilcoyne / Hadas) + the art admitted in the '437's Background.

• Amano supplies the goal-versus-achievement computation ("achievement rate G with respect to the target value").
• Mault supplies the nutrition/caloric-balance dimension and user data entry.
• Kumar/Alleckson/Hadas supply the remote reporting dimension.
• The Background section of the '437 is an admission that fitness programs, exercise equipment, dietary plans, self-help books, alternative therapies, and "a plethora of health information web sites on the Internet" were all known and each was already "targeted to empower the individual to take charge and get healthy." The inventor's stated contribution is that each prior attempt "addresses only part of the needs." Identifying an unmet need by aggregating known, individually adequate solutions is not patentable invention — KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21. The categories themselves (nutrition, activity, sleep, stress/relaxation, daily-living risk) track the standard domains of 1990s health-risk-appraisal and behavioral-modification programs.

Ground D2 (mind centering specifically). The '437 derives "depth of a mind centering event" from percent change in skin temperature, heart rate, respiration rate, heat flow or GSR versus a baseline. GSR/skin-temperature biofeedback for relaxation training was a decades-old, textbook technique by 2000; the claim limitation is the predictable application of a known biofeedback technique to a newly networked device. Similarly, the sleep claims are expressly built from "well known methods" (Table 2 lists the parameter-to-derivation mappings as known).

Family E — output-medium and recipient claims (facsimile, physical mail, PDA, pager, cellular phone; recipient = individual or authorized third party)

Ground E1: any of A-D + the general knowledge of network commerce. Selecting among known delivery channels (fax, mail, web page, PDA, pager, cell phone) is mere selection among known options with predictable results; USPTO practice treats such claims as obvious. The patent itself, at col. 5 context and in the Summary, describes these as alternatives ("various known types of long range wireless transmission devices").

---

4. Why a person of ordinary skill would have combined these — the motivation cluster

A POSITA here would be a biomedical/clinical engineer (or equivalent) with an undergraduate engineering degree and ~2 years' experience in ambulatory physiological monitoring and networked data systems — a persona for whom internetworked, multi-sensor, body-worn monitoring was an ordinary design target by mid-2000.

---

5. The patent owner's counterarguments, and how they fare

1. "Amano doesn't calculate achievement rate directly from two parameters." Rejected by the PTAB under BRI; at most it narrows the claim, in which case Ground A2 and B1 supply the two-parameter calculation.
2. "No evidence skin-conductance data can be used to determine calorie expenditure." This argument has force only against the specific use of GSR for calorie determination. It does not defeat the combination where Myllymaki's GSR sensor serves its disclosed function — compensating for false data — and caloric expenditure is still computed from pulse/temperature/motion. The claims at issue (11, 12, 17, 20) recite the sensor, not a GSR-to-calorie algorithm, so the argument risks attacking references individually rather than in combination (In re Keller).
3. "The combination changes Amano's principle of operation" (the two-switch simplicity argument). Rejected in the record: Amano's CPU "does not care whether the input data is collected by sensors or entered by a user, and the principle of operation is still the same." A modification that merely adds capability without defeating the reference's purpose is not a change in principle of operation.
4. Possible secondary considerations. Commercial success of the BodyMedia armband and the portfolio's industry value (Aliph/Jawbone acquisition, Fitbit's IPRs, Basis's acquisition by Intel) are real, but no nexus has been established between those claims and the claimed subject matter; and the '437 is cited 244 times by later patents (Select IP), which is evidence of disclosure significance, not of non-obviousness. Crucially, the earlier litigation section confirms the Delaware case (1:12-cv-00133) was stayed pending reexamination and resolved without a merits judgment, so there is no adjudicated finding of validity or infringement to anchor a secondary-considerations case.

---

6. Bottom line

• The single most decisive ground is Amano (US 6,287,262) alone — the PTAB sustained its anticipation of claim 32, and an anticipating reference a fortiori satisfies § 103. Any residual § 103 dispute narrows to whether "directly calculating… from said first and second parameters" excludes formula-selection use of the second parameter; even on the patent owner's own reading, Amano + Myllymaki and Amano + Mault cure it within the four corners of the reexam record.
• For the architecture/system claims, Kumar (US 6,416,471, filed 1999-04-15) is the load-bearing reference; combined with Amano (processing) and Mault (user lifestyle data), it renders the remote-central-monitoring-unit, storage, network-delivery, and third-party-recipient limitations obvious.
• For the "suggested routine adherence" and categorized-feedback claims, the '437's own Background is the most damaging document: it admits the existence of every individual component (fitness programs, dietary plans, self-help, health-information web sites) and concedes the sensors and methods are "well known." The claimed combination of known elements, each performing its known function, is obvious.
• Residual uncertainty (stated rather than papered over): (i) I could not obtain the reexamination certificate or the final disposition of the amended/added claims, so the claim text as issued may differ from the claim text as examined; (ii) the exact Mault and Pottgen members and the precise outcome for claims 11/17 and 39/45 were not fully recoverable from the decision excerpt I could access; (iii) per your earlier negative finding, I still have no evidence of a live CAFC 2026 docket on this patent — but note a PTAB appellate decision (Appeal 2015-000274) does exist in the 95/002,371 chain, which partially supersedes the earlier "outcome unknown" flag; and (iv) I could not confirm whether that PTAB decision was itself appealed.

Not legal advice — this is a technical validity analysis of the kind an expert declaration would support, not an infringement or enforceability opinion.