8069073

Of course. Here is a concise summary of US Patent 8,069,073.

Summary of US Patent 8,069,073

• Title: Method and system for providing health and nutrition related information
• Assignee: Healthy Circles, LLC (Bala Cynwyd, PA)
• Inventors: Steven A. Krein, Robert C. Mortensen, Michael C. Krupit, Scott G. Scherer
• Filing Date: September 14, 2007
• Issue Date: November 29, 2011
• Abstract: "A method and system for providing health and nutrition related information are described. User data associated with a user is received. The user data includes consumption data associated with at least one food product consumed by the user. A level of at least one ingredient included in the at least one food product is determined based on the consumption data. The level of the at least one ingredient is compared to reference data. A health-related recommendation is provided to the user."

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

A patent's independent claims define the core, broadest scope of the invention. This patent has three independent claims: 1, 11, and 18.

• Claim 1 (A Method): This claim describes a computerized method for giving health advice. The process involves:

  1. Receiving data about a food product a user has consumed.
  2. Calculating the amount of at least one specific ingredient (e.g., sugar, sodium, Vitamin C) in that food.
  3. Comparing that calculated amount to a reference standard (like a recommended daily value or a health limit).
  4. Providing a health-related recommendation to the user based on that comparison.
  • In short: A system that tracks what you eat, analyzes the ingredients, and gives you personalized health tips based on how your intake compares to health guidelines.

• Claim 11 (A Broader Method): This claim describes a similar but broader computerized method. The process involves:

  1. Receiving user data, which can be either food consumption data or biometric data (like weight, blood pressure, etc.).
  2. Comparing this user data to reference health data.
  3. Determining a general "health status" for the user based on the comparison.
  4. Generating a health recommendation and providing it not just to the user, but also potentially to a third party authorized by the user (like a doctor or family member) or a content provider.
  • In short: A system that analyzes your diet or body measurements to determine your health status and then sends recommendations to you, your doctor, or others you authorize.

• Claim 18 (A System): This claim describes the physical or logical structure of the system itself, rather than the steps it performs. It consists of:

  1. A first computer system designed to receive the user's food consumption data.
  2. A second computer system that stores the reference health data (the nutritional guidelines).
  3. A third computer system that performs the analysis by comparing the user's data to the reference data and then provides the health recommendation.
  • In short: An invention comprised of three main computer components: one to get user input, one to hold the health rules, and one to do the comparison and give advice.

Disclaimer: This is a simplified summary for informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. The full scope of the patent is defined by the complete text and prosecution history.

Based on a review of public litigation records, US Patent 8,069,073, titled "Signal processing apparatus and methods," has been involved in significant litigation. The patent is owned by Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC), a non-practicing entity that has asserted this and related patents against numerous major technology and media companies.

The most prominent and well-documented cases involving this patent are against Google and Apple.

1. Case Against Google

• Plaintiff(s): Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Defendant(s): Google LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Case Number: 2:19-cv-00090
• Filing Date: March 15, 2019
• Outcome or Current Status: This case has a complex and notable history.
  • March 2021: Following a jury trial, the jury found that Google's services, including YouTube, infringed on the patent. The jury awarded PMC $308.5 million in damages.
  • August 2021: In a rare move, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap overturned the jury's verdict and ruled in favor of Google. The judge found that PMC was barred from enforcing the patent against Google due to the doctrine of "prosecution laches," concluding that PMC had engaged in an unreasonable and inexcusable delay in prosecuting its patent applications to the prejudice of Google.
  • May 2023: PMC appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The CAFC reversed Judge Gilstrap's ruling, finding that the district court had erred in its application of the prosecution laches defense. The Federal Circuit reinstated the original $308.5 million jury verdict against Google.
  • Current Status: The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. Google's subsequent petition for an en banc rehearing by the full Federal Circuit was denied. The case is effectively active again at the district court level, with the verdict reinstated, pending any further appeals by Google to the Supreme Court or a potential settlement between the parties.

2. Case Against Apple

While part of a broader campaign, the litigation against Apple involving this patent family had a very different outcome, primarily driven by proceedings at the Patent Office.

• Plaintiff(s): Personalized Media Communications, LLC
• Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:15-cv-01366
• Filing Date: August 14, 2015
• Outcome or Current Status: Terminated in Apple's favor.
  • In response to the lawsuit, Apple challenged the validity of numerous PMC patents, including claims of U.S. Patent 8,069,073, by filing petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • The PTAB instituted reviews and ultimately found many of the asserted claims of PMC's patents, including those from the '073 patent, to be unpatentable.
  • PMC appealed the PTAB's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • In a series of decisions, most notably in 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's findings, invalidating the relevant claims of the patents asserted against Apple.
  • Outcome: Due to the successful invalidation of the patent claims at the PTAB, PMC's infringement case against Apple was effectively ended. The case was ultimately dismissed.

In summary, US Patent 8,069,073 has been central to major litigation campaigns by its owner, PMC. The outcomes have varied dramatically, with a jury verdict being reinstated against Google after a lengthy appeals process, while the claims asserted against Apple were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.