US 8446275

I'll search for the specific patent number and any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me get the actual claim text and check for any recent (2026) CAFC docket activity.

US 8,446,275 — Verification and Summary

Identifier check: I searched specifically for 8446275 / US8446275B2. Results returned for that number (not a look‑alike) are consistent across Google Patents, Justia, USPTO.report, and third‑party litigation copies. Note that a large volume of hits referenced other "…275" patents (e.g., Chamberlain's garage‑door patent, U.S. 8,984,565, etc.) — I excluded those.

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8446275/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[8446275](/patent/8446275) ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/8446275

Ownership chain visible in Google's assignment record: AliphCom → security interests (DBD Credit Funding, Wells Fargo, Silver Lake Waterman, BlackRock) → JB IP Acquisition LLC (July 19, 2019) → J Fitness LLC security interest (July 22, 2019).

2. Abstract — uncertain / not reproduced verbatim

⚠️ The authoritative full text I was able to retrieve for this patent (including the Google Patents page) did not include the abstract, and my searches did not return the verbatim abstract paragraph. I will therefore not quote an abstract, because doing so would risk fabrication. Based on the specification and the pre‑grant publication, the abstract's substance is, in substance: techniques for general health and wellness management in which a profile defining parameters and a target score is received, parameter data is acquired from sensors in a wearable device (e.g., a data‑capable band), values are determined against reference values in the profile, a score is calculated and presented relative to the target score, and the determination upon which the target score is modified can be adjusted. Treat this as a paraphrase, not the patent's actual abstract text.

3. Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Confidence caveat first: I could not retrieve the complete, verbatim claim set from a primary USPTO source in this session. The text below is reconstructed from (a) a litigation copy of the patent that reproduces its "What is claimed" section (Jawbone–Fitbit complaint hosted at wsj.com) and (b) a Korean IP‑office document quoting a claim from this patent family. I flag exactly which parts are firm.

Independent claim 1 — Method (firm on structure, wording partially reconstructed)

Claim 1 recites a method comprising, in plain terms:

1. Receive a profile that defines parameters on which a target score is established, where the target score is tied to one or more health‑related activities.
2. Acquire data representing one or more subsets of acquired parameters, using one or more sensors, at least one of which is disposed in a wearable computing device (the "data‑capable band").
3. Determine values for those parameter subsets by comparing them to reference values set forth in the profile.
4. Calculate a score (at a processor) from those values — the score represents the attained portion of the health‑related activities.
5. Cause presentation of a representation of the score relative to the target score.
6. Adjust the determination upon which the target score is to be modified — i.e., the mechanism for changing the goal is itself adjustable.
7. Wherein the target score is a standard against which groups of the aggregated values (forming the score) are compared.

Dependent claims 4–6 confirm the aggregation concept: sleep‑related, nutrition‑related, and movement‑related parameter subsets (claim 4), and aggregating a sleep score, nutrition score, and activity score (claim 5).

Independent claim 19 — Apparatus/system (firm; quoted from the litigation copy)

A device/system comprising:

• A first interface configured to receive acquired‑parameter data from one or more sensors, with at least one sensor disposed in a wearable computing device;
• An aggregation engine including:
  • a repository storing a profile defining parameters on which a target score is based;
  • one or more managers (including one or more processors), at least one manager configured to receive a subset of the acquired parameters and determine values for that subset as a point value relative to reference values in the profile;
  • calculate a score from those values; and
  • adjust the score based on threshold amounts for one or more of the values, forming an adjusted score;
• A general health and wellness module configured to facilitate modification of a value of an acquired parameter associated with a state of a user, in order to change the target score; and
• A status manager configured to cause presentation of a representation of the target score, wherein the score indicates relative proximity to the target score.

In plain language: it is the apparatus counterpart of claim 1 — a wearable‑sensor‑fed aggregation engine with separate "managers" (the specification names sleep manager 1430, activity manager 1432, nutrition manager 1434, and a general health/wellness manager 1436), score thresholds, a goal‑modification module (leveling up/down), and output via a display engine and/or haptic engine.

⚠️ Unverified: I could not confirm the total number of claims, nor whether there is a further independent claim (e.g., a computer‑readable‑medium claim, which is common in this family — compare sibling application US 2013/0002435, whose claim 19 is a CRM claim). Do not rely on the claim count or on the exact wording of claim 1's "first processor" language without pulling the granted text from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter.

Source for claim 19 and dependent claims 4–5: litigation copy of US 8,446,275 B2 at https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/jawbone0610.pdf (pages reproducing the "What is claimed" section). Claim 1 structure also corroborated by a family claim quoted in a KIPO document: https://www.kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoBultnFileDown.do?ntatcSeq=15501&ntatcAtflSeq=1&aprchId=BUT0000048

4. Litigation, PTAB, and CAFC status — including the 2026 check

What I found (per Google Patents' litigation/PTAB linkage and Unified Patents):

• PTAB: IPR2016‑00714 (petitioner: Unified Patents) — listed with a Final Written Decision. → https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2016-00714
• District court: N.D. Cal. cases 3:15‑cv‑02579, 4:15‑cv‑02579, 5:15‑cv‑02579 (the Jawbone/AliphCom v. Fitbit litigation) — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A15-cv-02579
• ITC: 337‑TA‑963 — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/International%20Trade%20Commission/case/337-TA-963
• CAFC: appeals 16‑2175, 16‑2187, 17‑1381 (2016–2017 vintage)

On your specific request re: CAFC 2026 dockets — ⚠️ I found no 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket activity for US 8,446,275. My searches returned only the 2016–2017 CAFC appeal numbers above. I cannot confirm the absence of a 2026 filing, because I did not have live PACER/CAFC CM‑ECF access in this session; but nothing in the retrieved data (including Google Patents' litigation linkage, which is typically refreshed) shows any post‑2019 activity for this patent. Given that Google lists the patent as "Expired – Fee Related" with a current owner of record being JB IP Acquisition LLC (subject to a J Fitness LLC security interest), the absence of recent appellate activity is plausible — but that is an inference, not a verified fact.

Also: the PTAB proceeding IPR2016‑00714 is listed as having reached a Final Written Decision, but I did not retrieve the outcome (which claims, if any, were held unpatentable). If that matters for your analysis, it should be pulled directly from PTAB‑CT (https://ptact.uspto.gov).

5. Explicit uncertainty register

1. Abstract — not reproduced; the one‑sentence gist above is a paraphrase from the specification, not the patent's abstract.
2. Claim 1 verbatim text — reconstructed from a secondary litigation copy plus a family‑claim quote in a Korean office document; the exact granted wording (e.g., "first processor") should be confirmed against the USPTO record.
3. Total claim count / possible additional independent claim(s) — unverified.
4. IPR2016‑00714 final outcome — not retrieved.
5. Any 2026 CAFC docket — none found; absence not conclusively verified.
6. One bibliographic oddity worth noting literally rather than "correcting": Google's anticipated‑expiration field reads 2031‑06‑10 while the legal status reads Expired – Fee Related (i.e., lapse for non‑payment of maintenance fees rather than term expiry). I am reporting both as listed and not reconciling them.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8446275 using multiple targeted searches.

Good initial results. Let me dig into the specific district court case, the PTAB proceeding, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

Let me search for the IPR2016-00714 final decision and the resolution of the district court case.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275

Patent identification (as given): US 8,446,275 B2 — "General health and wellness management method and apparatus for a wellness application using data from a data-capable band." Application No. 13/454,040; filed 2012-04-23; granted 2013-05-21; priority 2011-06-10; original assignee AliphCom LLC; current assignee of record (per Google Patents) JB IP Acquisition LLC. I have not auto-corrected any of these identifiers.

The '275 patent was asserted in one federal district court action, one Section 337 investigation at the ITC, and was the subject of one inter partes review at the PTAB. It also appears in several Federal Circuit docket entries. Details below, with sources.

1. District Court — AliphCom et al. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Sources: Docket — AliphCom et al v. Fitbit, Inc., 5:2015cv02579 (Justia); Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015).

2. ITC — Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof

Sources: 80 FR 50870 — Institution of Investigation; USITC Final ID / Notice of Commission Determination (337-TA-963); USITC Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review (Oct. 20, 2016).

Important caveat: the § 101 ineligibility ruling described above was issued by the ALJ and affirmed by the ITC under ITC procedures. It is an administrative determination; I did not retrieve evidence that it was the basis of a final district court judgment on the '275 patent.

3. PTAB — Inter Partes Review IPR2016-00714

Sources: Patexia litigation record — IPR2016-00714; Unified Patents PTAB portal — IPR2016-00714.

Caveat on petitioner identity: The Google Patents "Family has litigation" entry labels the petitioner as "Unified Patents PTAB Data," but that string is the data-provider attribution for Unified Patents' PTAB dataset, not the identity of the petitioner. The Patexia record identifies the petitioner as Fitbit, Inc. I flag this because the two sources can be read to conflict, and I am not auto-correcting either literal string.

Caveat on result: I could not confirm from the retrieved sources exactly which challenged claims the Board held unpatentable in the September 13, 2017 Final Written Decision. I do not have high-confidence confirmation of the specific claim-by-claim outcome.

4. Federal Circuit docket entries (listed on the patent record)

The patent record lists three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases in this family:

• No. 16-2175
• No. 16-2187
• No. 17-1381

I could not verify the parties, issues, or outcomes of these appeals from the sources returned. They are listed in the legal-events section of the Google Patents record for US 8,446,275 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8446275/en), but I am not able to attribute them to specific claims or a specific judgment with confidence.

Related but distinct proceedings (do NOT involve the '275 patent as asserted subject matter)

For completeness, because these are frequently confused with the '275 litigation:

• Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, Inc., BodyMedia, Inc., et al. — Fitbit's own infringement counter-suit asserting Fitbit patents (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,026,053 and 9,031,812) against Jawbone's UP products. This included a D. Del. action filed September 3, 2015 and an N.D. Cal. action (Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, No. 5:15-cv-...), in which the court granted Fitbit's motion to bifurcate and stay Jawbone's monopolization counterclaim (May 27, 2016).
• Jawbone (AliphCom) v. Fitbit — California state court trade-secret action filed May 27, 2015 (San Francisco Superior Court), which corresponds to the trade-secret aspect of the ITC investigation; not a '275 patent case.

Sources: Fitbit 10-Q (2015) referencing Aliphcom matters; Fitbit v. AliphCom complaint excerpt; IP Law Daily — monopolization counterclaim stayed (May 31, 2016).

Summary

US 8,446,275 was litigated in three principal fora:

1. N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-cv-02579 — AliphCom/BodyMedia v. Fitbit (filed 6/10/2015; stayed 12/30/2015 pending ITC).
2. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-963 — AliphCom/BodyMedia v. Fitbit and Flextronics (complaint 7/7/2015; instituted 8/21/2015; asserted '275 patent claims hit with a § 101 ineligibility summary determination affirmed in April 2016; investigation ended with a no-violation trade-secret determination in 2016).
3. PTAB IPR2016-00714 — Fitbit v. AliphCom (filed 3/4/2016; instituted 9/15/2016; Final Written Decision 9/13/2017).

Plus three Federal Circuit docket entries (16-2175, 16-2187, 17-1381) whose contents I could not verify.

Confidence notes / limitations:

• I am confident in the ITC facts (multiple corroborating official sources: Federal Register, USITC publications).
• I am reasonably confident in the district court filing date, case number, and stay ruling.
• I am moderately confident in the IPR details (filing, institution, FWD dates) but not in the specific claim-level outcome of the FWD.
• I could not verify the Federal Circuit appeals, and I did not find any final district court judgment on the '275 patent. I did not locate any other litigation (e.g., by JB IP Acquisition LLC, the current assignee) involving this patent.
• The patent is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2031-06-10 per the Google Patents record.

I'll start by reconciling the structured block against the patent's own front-page data — which already flags a PTAB case — then verify via web search.

The structured block conflicts with the patent's own front page, which flags IPR2016-00714. Let me pin down the petitioner and outcome.

Key finding confirmed. Now let me pin down the appeal history, claim count, and whether any other PTAB filings exist on this patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 8,446,275 B2

⚠️ Reconciliation note before anything else. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings. That is incorrect — the patent's own Google Patents front page flags a PTAB case, and the underlying FWD is publicly available. The block also repeats Google Patents' line Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data", which is a CC-BY data-source attribution for the PTAB dataset, not the identity of the petitioner. The actual petitioner is Fitbit, Inc. Treating "Unified Patents" as the petitioner here would be a material error. The findings below override the structured block.

Proceedings overview

One (1) AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US 8,446,275: 0 active, 1 with all challenged claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. In IPR2016-00714, the Board held claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 unpatentable in their entirety — 13 of the 13 claims Fitbit challenged. The bottom line for a defendant: every independent claim of this patent that matters is canceled. Claims 1 (method) and 19 (system) — the two claims a plaintiff would actually assert — are dead. A demand letter citing claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, or 18–19 is citing claims that no longer exist. Residual exposure is limited to six untested dependent claims (6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17), which is a materially weaker posture for any plaintiff.

IPR2016-00714 — Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)

• Filed: 2016-03-04 (petition filing date)

• Status: Final Written Decision (Google Patents / PTAB Data status string: "PTAB case IPR2016-00714 filed (Final Written Decision)"). Plain English: tried to judgment; all instituted claims canceled.

• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Bryan F. Moore (author of the FWD), Trevor M. Jefferson, and Miriam L. Quinn. Tech Center 2600.

• Petition grounds: Fitbit petitioned on claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19. The instituted grounds were:

  • Hoffman — § 102 anticipation — claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19
  • Hoffman in view of Gilley — § 103 obviousness — claims 10, 18, and 19

  (Statutory basis is § 102/§ 103 only; no § 112 grounds were instituted.)

• Institution decision: Instituted 2016-09-15 as to claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 — i.e., the full challenged set. The FWD states: "On September 15, 2016, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19."

  • Data conflict to be aware of: third-party docket aggregators (Patexia) list the instituted set as claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15 and 19, omitting claims 10 and 18. That is wrong. The FWD's own instituted-grounds table expressly includes claims 10 and 18 under the Hoffman+Gilley § 103 ground, and the FWD's disposition covers them. The FWD controls.

• Final Written Decision: 2017-09-13, Paper 27 (issued two days inside the § 316(a)(11) one-year deadline running from 2016-09-15). Verbatim disposition:

  "For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 are unpatentable."

  Claim-level outcome — all 13 instituted claims canceled:

  • Independent claim 1 (method) — CANCELED (Hoffman, § 102)
  • Independent claim 19 (system; recites "a first interface configured to receive data," "aggregation engine," "one or more managers including one or more processors," "score generator," "general health and wellness module," "status manager") — CANCELED (Hoffman, § 102; also Hoffman+Gilley, § 103)
  • Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 — CANCELED
  • Dependent claims 10 and 18 — CANCELED (Hoffman+Gilley, § 103)
  • No challenged claim was held patentable. Zero claims survived.

  The panel also rejected a Patent Owner argument on anticipation that has since been cited by other petitioners as Board precedent: "Prior art that sometimes explicitly meets the claim elements is sufficient to show unpatentability" (FWD Paper 27 at 22).

• Settlement / termination: None. This went to oral hearing (2017-06-13) and a merits FWD. No adverse judgment, no termination, no settlement on the record.

• Appeal: Not confirmed. The Google Patents front page lists three Federal Circuit dockets in the family — 16-2175, 16-2187 (both 2016), and 17-1381 (2017). All three predate the 2017-09-13 FWD, so none of them can be an appeal of this FWD; they arise from the parallel N.D. Cal. litigation and/or the ITC investigation. I could not verify whether AliphCom noticed an appeal of the IPR2016-00714 FWD (a notice filed ~2017-11 would have produced an 18-xxxx docket). Given that AliphCom's assets were subsequently sold and the patent moved to JB IP Acquisition LLC in 2019, the absence of a confirmable appeal docket is consistent with no appeal having been taken — but treat that as an inference, not a verified fact.

• Defensive value: Claims 1 and 19 — the only independent claims — are canceled, along with 11 dependents. Any infringement theory built on claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, or 18–19 is untenable; asserting them invites Rule 11 exposure. Note also that the same claims were separately held directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101 in the ITC's Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (Order No. 40, 2016-03-03; Commission affirmed in relevant part 2016-04-04) — so the '275 patent drew two independent invalidity findings on two different theories in a single year. Fitbit's own ITC briefing characterized the '275 patent as reciting "only generic and functional elements to calculate a 'score.'"

Primary sources

• FWD (Paper 27, 2017-09-13): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00714/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8446275/docs/09-13-2017-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-27-FINAL_WRITTEN_DECISION35_USC_318a.pdf
• Case docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00714/Fitbit_Inc._v._AliphCom_Inc._d-b-a_Jawbone/
• PTAB E2E (search Trial No. IPR2016-00714): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• ITC Order No. 52 (Public Version), Inv. No. 337-TA-963: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00543/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8961413/docs/05-09-2016-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2003-ITC_Denial_of_Motion_for_Summary_Determination_Case_No_337_TA_963.pdf

Strategic summary

Claim status map for US 8,446,275. CANCELED (13): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 — held unpatentable in IPR2016-00714, FWD 2017-09-13. UNCHALLENGED (6): 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 — never petitioned, never instituted, and therefore not addressed by the FWD. I have not claimed the FWD ruled on them; it did not. SUSTAINED: none. On the record available I cannot confirm whether the '275 patent contains claims numbered above 19 (claim 19 was the highest claim Fitbit challenged and the highest claim discussed in the public record I reviewed), so the "untested" set should be verified against the printed patent before you rely on it. The practical point stands: both independent claims are gone, and the surviving claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 are dependents whose parent claims no longer exist — they carry the full canceled-parent limitations plus a further restriction, which is a narrow and comparatively fragile assertion base.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Fitbit, Inc. and its privies are estopped in the N.D. Cal. litigation (and any later civil action or ITC proceeding) from asserting, against claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19, any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2016-00714 — which sweeps in Hoffman and Gilley and any art a skilled searcher would have found alongside them. Critically, that estoppel does not run against you. If you are a new defendant, you are not a privy of Fitbit and you are not bound by its IPR. But your own § 315(a)(1)/(b) one-year clock runs from service of the complaint, so the practical sequence is: (i) confirm the § 318(b) cancellation certificate issued; (ii) if the plaintiff is asserting surviving claims 6/7/11/12/16/17, recognize that you may file a fresh IPR on those claims using Hoffman (which defeated the parent claims) optionally combined with a secondary reference, provided you file within one year of service; (iii) for the canceled claims, there is nothing left to invalidate — the defense is dismissal, not estoppel.

Pattern signals. Fitbit ran a coordinated multi-patent IPR campaign against the AliphCom/Jawbone portfolio: the IPR2016-00714 FWD itself notes Fitbit also petitioned against claims 1–26 of U.S. 8,529,811 (IPR2016-00607) and claim 2 of U.S. 8,793,522 (IPR2016-00658). IPR2016-00607 produced an FWD on 2017-08-15 holding claims 16–26 of the '811 patent unpatentable (claims 1–15 were denied institution). So Fitbit is a repeat petitioner on this family, not a one-off. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents appears on the Google Patents page only as the open-data source credited for the PTAB record. The patent owner's PTAB conduct was defensive, not aggressive: AliphCom filed patent owner responses and requested oral hearing, but I found no evidence of AliphCom filing its own IPRs or aggressively appealing PTAB outcomes. Ownership has since passed from AliphCom → JB IP Acquisition LLC (2019-07-19), with J Fitness LLC holding a security interest (2019-07-22) — i.e., the patent has migrated into a monetization/asset-holding structure, which is precisely the profile of a patent that gets asserted after its claims have been canceled.

Recommended next steps

1. Get the § 318(b) certificate. The FWD canceled claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, 18–19. If no appeal was taken, the Director issued a certificate canceling those claims, and they are treated as though they never existed. Pull the certificate from USPTO Patent Center / the patent's "Certificates" tab and quote it. If a certificate exists, any demand letter citing claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, or 18–19 is knowingly baseless — preserve it for a § 285 fee motion.
2. Verify the appeal window closed. Check the CAFC docket for any 18-xxxx appeal naming AliphCom/AliphCom LLC as appellant and referencing IPR2016-00714. Field of search: Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22IPR2016-00714%22&type=o). If you find an appeal, the cancellation is stayed as to the appealed claims and the posture changes — do not assume cancellation until you have ruled this out.
3. Map the residual claims. Read claims 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 in the printed patent and confirm their dependency chains. If each depends (directly or indirectly) from canceled claims 1–5/13–15/18–19, the surviving scope is the canceled scope plus an extra limitation, and Hoffman — the reference that killed the parents — is your lead invalidity theory, with estoppel unavailable against you as a non-privy.
4. Track the title chain. Current assignee is JB IP Acquisition LLC (recorded 2019-07-19), with a security interest held by J Fitness LLC (recorded 2019-07-22). Any licensing or assertion contact will likely come from that entity, not from AliphCom. The patent's legal status is Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2031-06-10 — confirm maintenance-fee status before conceding any term.
5. No active proceedings to monitor. There is no pending IPR/PGR/CBM on this patent. There is accordingly no institution-deadline, no oral-hearing date, and no § 316(a)(11) FWD due date to calendar. The absence of new proceedings is not itself a signal of health: the reason well-asserted patents attract IPRs is that they get asserted, and this one has already been through the wringer once.
6. Sanity-check the data feed. The ODP block returned "no PTAB activity," which is demonstrably false for this patent. If your workflow relies on that feed, cross-check against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the patent's Google Patents "litigation"/PTAB panel, because the structured block as supplied would have caused you to tell a defendant the opposite of the truth.

Confidence and gaps. High confidence on: petitioner identity (Fitbit, not Unified Patents), filing date (2016-03-04), panel composition, institution date and claim set, grounds and references (Hoffman; Hoffman+Gilley), hearing date, FWD date, and the fact that all 13 instituted claims were held unpatentable. Lower confidence, flagged above and requiring verification: (a) whether the FWD was appealed; (b) the precise total claim count of the '275 patent above claim 19; (c) the subject matter of CAFC dockets 16-2175, 16-2187, and 17-1381; and (d) the full citation details for the Hoffman and Gilley references, which I did not independently verify and have therefore not attempted to characterize.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain, litigation, and the PTAB proceeding before reconstructing the record.

Now let me dig into the post-2019 ownership entities and the assignment recording details.

US 8,446,275 B2 — Ownership Chain Reconstruction

"General health and wellness management method and apparatus for a wellness application using data from a data-capable band"
App. 13/454,040 · filed 2012-04-23 · issued 2013-05-21 · priority 2011-06-10 (AliphCom CIP chain) · current assignee of record: JB IP Acquisition LLC

Data-access caveat (read first). I could not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly in this session. Everything below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events / reassignment table embedded in the patent record, plus court, ITC, PTAB, and SEC sources. That table does not expose the correspondent-of-record field, and it exposes reel/frame numbers only where a later corrective assignment cites them. Where I do not have a reel/frame or a correspondent name, I say so rather than supply one. Signal #3 (repeat correspondent) is therefore unverifiable in this session — that is a sourcing gap, not a negative finding.

Inventors

Unusual patterns — assessed:

• Single-inventor patent. No co-inventor cohort exists, so the "all inventors departing within 12 months" tell is structurally unavailable.
• The 2015-06-24 corrective assignment was still executed by Utter as the assignor of record (correcting the assignee name on the original record at Reel 028652 Frame 0258), which confirms his assignment of record but tells us nothing about his employment status at that date. I found no evidence of when Utter left AliphCom, and I will not infer one.
• Notable provenance pattern instead of an inventor-departure pattern: this patent is a software/app-side CIP in a portfolio where ~147 of Jawbone's 156 US patents came in through the 2013 BodyMedia acquisition (Envision IP analysis, reported by D Young & Co and Lexology). The '275 sits on the organically-filed AliphCom side of the portfolio, not the acquired side.

Original assignee

AliphCom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone — California corporation, principal place of business 99 Rhode Island Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 (confirmed in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-963 and in its own N.D. Cal. pleadings).

• Primary line of business: consumer audio (Jambox speakers, Bluetooth headsets) and wearable activity trackers / wellness software — the UP product family (UP, UP24, UP Move, UP2, UP3, UP4) and the UP App.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Jawbone marketed and sold activity trackers and the UP App (Jawbone admitted marketing/selling UP Move, UP24, UP2, UP3, UP4 in its N.D. Cal. counterclaims, 3:15-cv-02579). The '275 claims are directed to exactly that app-side score/target-score wellness layer, and Jawbone affirmatively pleaded in the same pleading that it is "the assignee and owner of the '275 patent and holds all rights, title and interests… including the right to sue."
• Current status: ceased operations and entered liquidation (reported 2017; Envision IP's portfolio analysis summarized by Owler: Jawbone "has ceased operations and begun liquidation proceedings"). The 2019 assignment signatures — assignor "ALIPHCOM, LLC" (a converted entity, not the original "AliphCom, Inc.") together with BodyMedia, Inc. and the appearance of Jawbone Health Hub, Inc. — are consistent with a wind-down structure. I have not verified a court-supervised Chapter 7/11 docket for AliphCom in this session.
• Patent status now: Google Patents legal status is "Expired – Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2031-06-10 — i.e., the patent appears to have lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, which is consistent with the asserted claims having been invalidated (see below).

Assignment timeline

Dates below are the recordation dates shown in the Google Patents reassignment table (the source does not expose separate execution dates). Reel/frame is given only where the record itself discloses it.

• 2012-07-26 — Reel 028652 / 0258 (disclosed indirectly: this reel/frame is cited as the "previously recorded" record being corrected by the 2015-06-24 corrective assignment; the original document's execution date is not exposed)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Utter, Max Everett, II
  • Assignee: AliphCom, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the source record — gap.
  • Context: inventor-to-employer assignment perfecting AliphCom's title at issuance.

• 2013-08-08

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC
  • Assignee: DBD Credit Funding LLC, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: securitization — the whole AliphCom group's patent estate pledged as venture-debt collateral.

• 2013-12-04

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: securitization — second secured lender layered onto the same estate.

• 2014-12-03

  • Conveyance: Notice of Substitution of Administrative Agent in Patents
  • Assignor: DBD Credit Funding LLC (resigning agent)
  • Assignee: Silver Lake Waterman Fund, L.P., as Successor Agent
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: internal reorg of the security structure — collateral moved to a new agent; no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2015-04-28

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Agent
  • Assignee/Beneficiaries: BodyMedia, Inc.; AliphCom; Aliph, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: discharge of the Wells Fargo lien.

• 2015-04-28 — Reel 035531 / 0554 (disclosed via the 2017-11-02 corrective assignment, which cites it as "previously recorded")

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Silver Lake Waterman Fund, L.P., as Administrative Agent
  • Assignee/Beneficiaries: BodyMedia, Inc.; AliphCom; Aliph, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: discharge of the Silver Lake lien.

• 2015-04-28

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC
  • Assignee: BlackRock Advisors, LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: securitization — replacement secured lender takes a blanket lien the same day the old liens are released.

• 2015-06-24

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (assignee-name correction)
  • Assignor: Utter, Max Everett, II
  • Assignee: AliphCom
  • Correspondent: not exposed. Structural tell: this filing reaches back to cite Reel 028652/0258, showing one recording agent has continuously maintained the file.
  • Context: change of name only — fixes the assignee designation on the 2012 record.

• 2015-08-27 — Reel 036500 / 0173 (disclosed via the 2017-01-26 corrective assignment)

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC
  • Assignee: BlackRock Advisors, LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: securitization — confirmatory/expanded BlackRock filing.

• 2017-01-26

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (application-number correction)
  • Assignor: Aliph, Inc.; AliphCom; BodyMedia, Inc.; MacGyver Acquisition, LLC; Project Paris Acquisition LLC
  • Assignee: BlackRock Advisors, LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed. Structural tell: cites Reel 036500/0173.
  • Context: correction of the security interest record only.

• 2017-11-02

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (releases 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 exposed. Structural tell: cites Reel 035531/0554.
  • Context: correction of the 2015 release record only.

• 2019-07-19 ← the ownership transfer that matters

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: AliphCom, LLC; BodyMedia, Inc.
  • Assignee: JB IP Acquisition LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the source record — gap. This is the single most valuable missing field in the whole chain.
  • Context: post-liquidation disposition of the estate — the defunct operating company's portfolio sold to a standalone IP-holding vehicle.
  • Reel/frame: not listed in the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent; unverified.

• 2019-07-22

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: JB IP Acquisition, LLC
  • Assignee: J Fitness LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: securitization — the new acquirer pledges the portfolio it just bought (three days later).

• 2019-07-22

  • Conveyance: UCC Financing Statement
  • Assignor: JB IP Acquisition, LLC → Assignee: J Fitness LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: perfection filing for the above security interest.

• 2019-07-22

  • Conveyance: UCC Financing Statement
  • Assignor: Jawbone Health Hub, Inc. → Assignee: J Fitness LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: perfection filing covering the related Jawbone Health Hub estate.

• 2019-08-08

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: BlackRock Advisors, LLC → Assignee: AliphCom LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: discharge of the last legacy BlackRock lien so the portfolio could close free and clear.

• 2019-08-15

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Jawbone Health Hub, Inc.; JB IP Acquisition, LLC → Assignee: J Fitness LLC
  • Correspondent: not exposed.
  • Context: closing-mechanics release among the post-sale parties.

Summary of the record: 17 recorded events. Exactly one is a true change of beneficial ownership (2012-07-26, inventor → AliphCom). Everything from 2013-08-08 through 2019-08-08 is securitization, agent substitution, release, or correction. The only post-issuance ownership transfer is 2019-07-19: AliphCom LLC + BodyMedia → JB IP Acquisition LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8446275
    2011 : Priority chain filed by AliphCom
    2012 : Application filed by AliphCom
         : Utter assigns to AliphCom at Reel 028652
    2013 : Patent issued to AliphCom
         : Estate pledged to DBD Credit Funding
         : Wells Fargo takes patent security
    2014 : Silver Lake Waterman named successor agent
    2015 : Old liens released
         : BlackRock takes security interest
         : Jawbone sues Fitbit on this patent
         : ITC probe 337-TA-963 opened
    2016 : ITC holds asserted claims ineligible
         : PTAB institutes IPR2016-00714
    2017 : PTAB holds claims unpatentable
         : Jawbone ceases operations
    2019 : AliphCom LLC transfers to JB IP Acquisition LLC
         : J Fitness LLC takes security interest

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (structural; corroborating tells unverified).
The patent moved from operating assignees (AliphCom, LLC and BodyMedia, Inc., which had shipped the UP device and UP App) to JB IP Acquisition LLC at the 2019-07-19 assignment of assignors' interest. That is the core of the signal. The customary corroborating tells — "IP Acquisition" naming, no products in commerce, registered-agent service address, single-member DE/TX LLC — are consistent with the naming but I could not verify the entity's address, formation, or product footprint in this session, and the reel/frame for that recording was not exposed either. Treat as present on the transfer structure, unproven on the shell indicia.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No entity in this chain appears on the enumerated lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). AliphCom, BodyMedia, JB IP Acquisition LLC and J Fitness LLC do not match. Note the inverse data point: Stanford's NPE litigation database lists AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone as an alleged infringer in NPE suits — Sportbrain Holdings LLC v. AliphCom, 1:16-cv-00605 (N.D. Ill.) and Freeny v. AliphCom, 2:16-cv-00674 (E.D. Tex.) — i.e., Jawbone was an NPE target, which cuts against classifying the historic chain as NPE-driven. I could not run JB IP Acquisition / J Fitness against the RPX or Unified asserter directories in this session.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable; sourcing gap).
The correspondent-of-record field was not exposed in any record I could reach, and I could not query the Assignment Center directly. The only proxy available is internal cross-referencing: three corrective recordings each cite an earlier reel/frame — 028652/0258 (cited 2015-06-24), 036500/0173 (cited 2017-01-26), 035531/0554 (cited 2017-11-02) — demonstrating that a single recording agent held the file across 2012–2017. But no attorney name is attached to any of them, and the crucial 2019-07-19 transfer to JB IP Acquisition LLC has no reel/frame in the record at all. This signal needs a manual Assignment Center lookup to resolve.

4. Cascading transfers — UNCLEAR.
There is a genuine date cluster: six recordings in 27 days (2019-07-19 → 2019-08-15) cycling through JB IP Acquisition LLC, J Fitness LLC, Jawbone Health Hub, Inc., AliphCom LLC and BlackRock. That meets the timing prong on its face. But the substance reads as a single secured asset-sale closing — buyer takes title, buyer's lender perfects, legacy liens release — which is an innocent and common explanation. The "chained LLCs sharing a correspondent address / attorney / principals" prong is unverified. Not enough to call.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The first suit naming the '275 patent was filed 2015-06-10 (AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02579, N.D. Cal.), followed by the ITC complaint on 2015-07-07 (Inv. No. 337-TA-963, instituted 2015-08-17). The nearest prior recordings were the 2015-04-28 lien releases and BlackRock security interest — inside six months, but they are lien mechanics, not ownership transfers, and the plaintiff AliphCom had been the record owner since 2012-07-26. No assignment to the asserting party was needed or made. The only real ownership transfer, 2019-07-19, came roughly four years after the campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — UNCLEAR (leaning present on facts, unverified on forum).
AliphCom/Jawbone ceased operations and began liquidation proceedings (reported 2017), and the portfolio was transferred out in 2019 by "AliphCom, LLC" (a converted, post-wind-down entity) plus BodyMedia and Jawbone Health Hub, Inc. — the signature of a distressed disposition. The 2019 sequence (buyer takes title 07-19 → lender perfects 07-22 → legacy liens released 08-08/08-15) is the classic closing of a distressed patent sale. However, I did not verify a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 docket or a court-approved §363 sale for AliphCom in this session. If the transfer was an out-of-court wind-down or assignment for the benefit of creditors, it is functionally a fire-sale but does not literally satisfy the "sold in proceedings" prong.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
AliphCom asserted the '275 patent in its own name against a direct competitor, and no evidence shows AliphCom transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The post-2019 holder (JB IP Acquisition LLC) has, on the record I could reach, not asserted this patent at all — and would have little to assert: the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00714 held claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15 and 18–19 unpatentable, and the ITC granted summary determination on 2016-03-03 that the asserted '275 claims were patent-ineligible under §101. The patent is also listed as "Expired – Fee Related."

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at JB IP Acquisition LLC (with J Fitness LLC holding a security interest), not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. Nothing in the record neutralizes the patent defensively.

Metadata correction worth flagging: the Google Patents page displays the IPR2016-00714 entry adjacent to a "Unified Patents PTAB Data" license attribution, which reads as though Unified Patents filed the challenge. It did not. The petitioner in IPR2016-00714 was Fitbit, Inc., against Patent Owner AliphCom, Inc. — confirmed by the Board's Final Written Decision (Judges Moore, Jefferson, Quinn). Do not book a "Unified Patents challenge" against this patent.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

Why: exactly one clean ownership transfer exists in the entire record — the 2019-07-19 assignment from AliphCom, LLC and BodyMedia, Inc. to JB IP Acquisition LLC — and it moved the patent out of the operating company that had shipped the UP band and UP App into a standalone IP-holding vehicle whose only recorded subsequent act was pledging the portfolio to J Fitness LLC (2019-07-22). That is one strong shell-entity-transfer signal, which is the threshold for "moderate" under the rubric; the cascading-transfer and correspondent-recurrence signals are unresolved only because the correspondent field and the 2019 reel/frame were not exposed in any source I could reach.

Important scoping: this verdict applies only to the current, post-2019 ownership. The 2015 campaign was a textbook operating-company assertion — Jawbone shipped the accused-adjacent product and sued Fitbit, a direct competitor, in N.D. Cal. (3:15-cv-02579) and at the ITC (337-TA-963). And the monetization upside is thin: the PTAB invalidated the asserted claims in IPR2016-00714 and the ITC found them §101-ineligible, and the patent now shows as Expired – Fee Related.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 8446275)
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8446275/en

Two lookups would close this file: (a) the correspondent of record on the 2019-07-19 JB IP Acquisition LLC assignment — that single name would resolve signal #3 and probably #4 at once, since it is the field most likely to recur across the Jawbone-family liquidations; and (b) the entity records (address, formation date, members) for JB IP Acquisition LLC and J Fitness LLC, which would confirm or refute the shell indicia I could only infer from naming.

I'll research this patent and its prior art citations.

Let me get the specific patent's citation data from Justia and Google Patents.

Let me retrieve the "Patent Citations" table from Google Patents and the Justia "References Cited" section.

Important methodological caveat (read first)

I attempted to pull the face-of-patent "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents) table for US 8,446,275 directly from USPTO/Google Patents/Justia. I was able to confirm the patent's identity and family, and to retrieve portions of the patent's "Other References / Referenced Cited" listing, but I was not able to retrieve a verified, complete copy of the U.S. Patent Documents citation table before my tool budget ran out.

Per my operating rules, I will not fabricate a citation list, dates, or a § 102 mapping. Below I separate (A) what is confirmed by the authoritative text you supplied and by verifiable sources, from (B) the prior-art references I could actually ground, and from (C) the § 102 framework with explicit uncertainty flags.

1. The patent actually being analyzed (confirmed)

From the authoritative Google Patents text you supplied:

Single claim-family / claim-1 gist (from the abstract, which tracks claim 1): receiving profile data establishing a target score; acquiring parameter data from sensors in a wearable computing device; determining values for parameter subsets based on reference values in the profile; calculating a score representing an attained portion of health-related activities; and causing presentation of the score relative to the target score.

⚠️ I could not independently verify the exact number of claims in the printed patent, so I do not state one.

2. The critical family point (not prior art, but decisive for § 102)

The specification definitions section (supplied text) shows US 8,446,275 is a continuation-in-part within a dense Aliphcom/Jawbone family. Applications tied to the same 2011-06-10 priority chain include (from the Google Patents "Priority claimed from" list):

• US 13/158,372 (→ US 2012/0313272 A1)
• US 13/158,416 (→ US 2012/0313296 A1) — Jun 11, 2011
• US 13/180,320 (→ US 8,793,522 B2) — Jul 11, 2011
• US 13/181,495 (→ US 2012/0316932 A1) and US 13/181,511 (→ US 2012/0316896 A1) — Jul 12, 2011
• US 13/433,204 (→ US 2012/0326873 A1), 13/433,208 (→ US 2013/0002435 A1), 13/433,213 (→ US 2013/0004923 A1) — Mar 28, 2012

These cannot be § 102 art against the claims to the extent they share the 2011-06-10 priority and are "by another" only nominally. Any competent § 102 attack must move the effective priority date of the challenged claim, or else rely on references predating 2011-06-10.

3. Prior-art references I could actually ground

3.1 Materials listed in the patent's "Other References / Referenced Cited" section (per Justia, patent/8446275, §"Referenced Cited")

The following appear in the Justia listing for US 8,446,275. Note these are largely co-pending/related applications and prosecution documents, plus press, not classic § 102 patents — but they are what the record shows:

Related/family applications cited (Aliphcom inventors):

• US 13/158,416 (Drysdale et al.); US 13/135,728 (Drysdale et al.); US 61/495,995 (Drysdale et al.)
• US 13/180,320 (Rahman et al.); US 13/181,512 (Rahman et al.); US 61/495,994 / 61/495,996 / 61/495,997 (Drysdale et al.)
• US 13/180,000 (Rahman et al.); US 13/181,495 / 13/181,511 / 13/181,486 / 13/181,500 / 13/181,498 / 13/181,513 (Rahman et al.)
• US 13/361,919 (Rahman et al.); US 13/405,240 / 13/405,241 (Drysdale/Rahman et al.)
• US 13/253,000; 13/182,352 (Nazarian et al.); 12/560,069 & 12/621,099 (Nadkarni et al.); 12/823,280 (Bentley et al.); 12/883,304, 12/891,108, 13/204,658 (Jangle et al.)
• Fish-family: 13/253,000; 61/210,821; 61/210,862; 12/730,194; 12/730,199; 61/630,064; 61/627,891; 61/516,478; 61/516,477

Third-party application numbers cited (BodyMedia/BodyMedia-lineage inventors — Stivoric, Teller, Farringdon, Pacione, Andre):

• 12/469,633 (Kahn et al., filed Nov 26, 2009)
• 12/033,753; 12/033,760; 12/033,766; 12/217,299; 12/840,109 (Farringdon et al.)
• 11/925,902 / 11/925,903 / 11/925,908 (Teller et al.); 11/876,601 (Stivoric et al.); 11/927,276 (Stivoric et al.)
• Prov. 60/729,663 (Stein); 60/727,357 (Pacione et al.); 60/555,280 (Pacione et al.); 60/502,746 (Bucher et al.); 60/417,163 (Andre et al.); 60/729,683; 60/958,516; 60/510,013 (Farringdon et al.); 60/502,764; 60/901,952 (Stivoric et al.)
• …plus a long run of further Stivoric/Teller/Farringdon/Pacione applications (11/582,896; 10/638,588; 10/682,293; 10/940,214; 11/088,002; 11/239,748; 11/322,010; 11/434,949; 11/481,147; 11/724,373; the 11/925,9xx and 11/928,0xx and 11/930,0xx series; the 12/033,7xx series; etc.)

Prosecution documents / search reports:

• USPTO Office Actions in 13/427,839 (mailed Jul 12, 2012); 13/405,240 (Nov 29, 2012); 13/181,495 (Mar 28, 2012 and Nov 21, 2012); 13/361,919 (Mar 23, 2012 and Nov 6, 2012); 13/405,241 (Sep 21, 2012)
• ~20 PCT/US 2012 International Search Reports (PCT/US12/31319; 12/41964; 12/31322; 12/40797; 12/38185; 12/039761; 12/38201; 12/41710; 12/41940; 12/38410; 12/41959; 12/31325; 12/41177; 12/40965; 12/39763; 12/40047; 12/40328; 12/31326; 12/40812; 12/40590)

Non-patent literature / press:

• Lauren Goode, "Sleep-Sensor Maker Lark Takes on Nike+ FuelBand With Larklife," All Things Digital / WSJ, Oct 8, 2012
• Deborah Porterfield, "Life Gets Easier with New Tech Accessories," USA Today, Oct 18, 2012

⚠️ Both press items are dated Oct 2012 — after the 2011-06-10 priority date. They cannot be § 102(a)/(b) art and are not anticipation references for the 2011-06-10 claims.

3.2 BodyMedia-lineage patents that recur across the record (high-confidence context, but I could NOT verify they are cited on the face of 8,446,275)

The search results surfaced these in proximity to 8,446,275 (e.g., on the pages for US 7,261,690, US 6,605,038 and WO 2001096986, which all list 8,446,275 as a citing reference):

• US 6,605,038 B1 — Teller et al., "System for monitoring health, wellness and fitness" (BodyMedia)
• US 7,261,690 B2 — Teller et al., "Apparatus for monitoring health, wellness and fitness" (BodyMedia)
• WO 2001096986 A2 — "System for monitoring health, wellness and fitness"
• US 2002/0109600 A1 — Healthetech, "Body Supported Activity and Condition Monitor" (Oct 25, 2000)
• US 7,881,902 B1 — Kahn et al., "System and method for personal and peer performance ranking of outdoor activities" (Feb 1, 2011)
• US 8,386,878 / US 8,386, no — mixed list — the "device for tracking consumption" references (Herron, McClung, etc.) listed on the earlier page were from a different patent (US 2022/0310229 A1), not from 8,446,275.

⚠️ I flag clearly: these are contextual, associated in the search results with 8,446,275's citing/related ecosystem. I did not verify they appear in 8,446,275's own "Patent Citations" table. Do not treat them as face-of-patent citations without checking the printed patent.

4. Post-grant challenge record (relevant to prior art)

From the Google Patents page (authoritative for you):

• IPR2016-00714 — filed against this family; Google Patents notes a "Final Written Decision." Petitioner shown as Unified Patents. The IPR petition and FWD are the single richest source of actual asserted prior-art grounds; the FWD would state exactly which references and which claims were at issue. ⚠️ I do not have the IPR2016-00714 petition or FWD contents in hand, so I will not name its asserted references or its outcome.
• N.D. Cal. cases 3:15-cv-02579, 4:15-cv-02579, 5:15-cv-02579 (the Jawbone/Aliphcom v. Fitbit litigation)
• ITC 337-TA-963
• Fed. Cir. 16-2175, 16-2187, 17-1381

These proceedings are where a full § 102/§ 103 mapping for 8,446,275 would have been briefed (invalidity contentions, IPR petitions, FWDs). That is the correct next source to mine.

5. § 102 framework for the claims (with what I can responsibly say)

Claim 1 requires, in substance:

1. (a) receiving profile data establishing a target score based on health-related activities;
2. (b) acquiring parameter data from sensors in a wearable computing device;
3. (c) determining values for parameter subsets using reference values set forth in the profile;
4. (d) calculating, at a first processor, a score representing an attained portion of the health-related activities; and
5. (e) causing presentation of the score relative to the target score.

Element-by-element § 102 mapping, with honest confidence levels:

Bottom line on anticipation: On the information I could actually verify, I cannot responsibly assert that any specific reference anticipates claim 1 (or any dependent claim) under § 102. The classic candidates in this space (BodyMedia/Teller, Kahn, Healthetech) read more naturally as § 103 obviousness combinations (multiple-monitoring-subsystem + score-aggregation), which is consistent with this being an IPR / invalidity fight rather than a clean § 102 rejection. But I want to be explicit that this is an analytical inference, not a verified citation mapping.

I also note from the specification's own "Definitions" section that the patent itself distinguishes the invention over "fitness watches, heart rate monitors, GPS-enabled fitness monitors, health monitors… pedometers… altimeters" — i.e., the applicant was conceding that class of art as known.

6. What I recommend to close the gap (so the § 102 table can be completed rigorously)

1. Get the printed patent's "References Cited" front page (USPTO PatentCenter or the tiff/PDF of US 8,446,275) — that is the definitive "each patent citation" list you asked for. Google Patents' "Patent Citations" table for US 8,446,275 B2 mirrors it.
2. Pull IPR2016-00714 petition + Final Written Decision from the PTAB (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2016-00714 and USPTO PTAB). The FWD gives the exact grounds, references, and claim dispositions.
3. Pull the N.D. Cal. 3:15-cv-02579 invalidity contentions and ITC 337-TA-963 record for the full art matrix against this family.
4. Check the pre-grant publication US 2012/0313776 A1 as a separate citable document (different claims).

Sources cited

• Google Patents, US 8,446,275 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8446275/en (bibliographic data, family, IPR/litigation links, specification)
• Justia Patents, US 8,446,275 — https://patents.justia.com/patent/8446275 (Referenced Cited / Other References listing)
• Unified Patents PTAB, IPR2016-00714 — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2016-00714
• Unified Patents litigation records — N.D. Cal. 3:15-cv-02579; ITC 337-TA-963; Fed. Cir. 16-2175/16-2187/17-1381
• Cross-reference pages listing US 8,446,275: US 7,261,690 B2; WO 2001096986; US 7,881,902 B1 (via patents.justia.com / patents.google.com)

If you can paste the front-page "References Cited" list from the printed US 8,446,275 (or the IPR2016-00714 FWD), I will build the complete reference-by-reference § 102 table — full citation, date, description, and the specific claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates — with a confidence rating on each mapping.

I'll research the prior-art record for US 8,446,275 before building the § 103 analysis.

Now let me pull the specific IPR grounds and the reference combinations asserted against this patent.

Let me get the actual instituted grounds and references in IPR2016-00714.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275 ("the '275 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on scope and sources. This analysis is built from (a) the "Prior Art" section and bibliographic data on the page supplied to me (Prior art keywords: score; data; patent application; user; filed jun; Prior art date 2011‑06‑10), (b) the granted‑patent front page and its "References Cited" list, and (c) the public PTAB/litigation record for this patent. Where I could not verify something from retrieved material, I say so explicitly rather than asserting it. I did not have the full verbatim claim set in the page text, so the claim elements below are reconstructed from the abstract and the public summaries of the patent; a rigorous § 103 chart must be re‑run against the literal claim language and the prosecuted claim set.

1. Legal framework and critical date

• Governing statute: pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The '275 patent's earliest priority is 2011‑06‑10 (provisional/continuation chain) with a 2012‑04‑23 filing date (App. No. 13/454,040). Because the application was filed before 16 March 2013, the AIA's first‑inventor‑to‑file § 102/§ 103 provisions do not apply. Prior art must therefore qualify under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e), with a § 102(b) critical date of 2011‑04‑23 and § 102(a) measured against the June 2011 invention date.
• Standard: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations), applied through KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The PTAB's own framing in the parallel Fitbit/Jawbone proceedings (e.g., IPR2016‑00714 Final Written Decision, citing KSR and Graham) is the correct template. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00714/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8446275/docs/09-13-2017-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-27-FINAL_WRITTEN_DECISION35_USC_318a.pdf
• Litigation posture (context, not estoppel): this patent was asserted by AliphCom/BodyMedia against Fitbit in N.D. Cal. (3:15‑cv‑02579) and in ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑963; Fitbit filed IPR2016‑00714 on 2016‑03‑04 challenging claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, 18, 19 (instituted on 1–5, 8, 9, 13–15, 19), FWD issued 2017‑09‑13. https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Fitbit-Inc-v-AliphCom-Inc-d-b-a-Jawbone-id-67439 Separately, the ITC affirmed an initial determination that the '275 claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101. https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_963_2ndnotice04042016sgl.pdf And the patent was again challenged in IPR2024‑00241 (Apple Inc.), where the '275 patent is Exhibit 1006. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00241/Apple_Inc/docs/12-12-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1006-US_Patent_No_8,446,275_Utter.pdf

2. The claims, as presently understood

The '275 patent has 19 claims. Independent claim 1 (per the published abstract and family summaries) recites a method substantially as follows:

Dependent claims add the familiar genus: sleep parameters, motion/activity parameters, nutrition parameters, weighting/aggregation across categories, environmental parameters, and social parameters (these map to the disclosure's sleep manager 1430, activity manager 1432, nutrition manager 1434, general health/wellness manager 1436, plus the environmental manager / social manager of the later family member US 2014/0129008). https://golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_8446275_General_health_and_wellness_management_method_and_apparatus_for_a_wellness_application_using_data_from_a_data-capable_band-63G38XM

Key observation for § 103: neither the "prior art keywords" listed on the page (score, data, patent application, user, filed jun) nor the claim language itself identifies any unconventional hardware, sensing modality, algorithm, or data structure. The alleged invention is an aggregation‑and‑presentation layer — a scoring/normalization scheme layered onto already‑known wearable sensing. That framing drives the analysis below.

3. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

Consistent with the Board's practice of taking the level of skill from the references themselves (Okajima v. Bourdeau; In re GPAC), the '275 references establish a POSITA as a person with:

• a bachelor's degree in electrical/computer engineering, computer science, biomedical engineering, or equivalent, plus ~2–3 years of experience in (i) wearable sensors/signal processing and (ii) consumer health‑and‑fitness software, or
• equivalent experience sufficient to build a body‑worn sensor package and the application software that consumes its output.

This is a low‑to‑moderate skill level in a crowded, fast‑moving commercial art — precisely the setting in which KSR holds that market demand and a finite set of predictable design options supply the motivation to combine.

4. Scope and content of the prior art of record

The reference list printed on the face of the '275 patent is dominated by three families that, together, already occupy nearly the entire claim space. (List from the grant front page and the citation table.)

A. BodyMedia / Stivoric–Teller–Farringdon family — the wearable multi‑sensor band + derived‑parameter + goal‑relative presentation

• US 6,527,711; 6,605,038; 7,020,508; 7,153,262; 7,261,690; 7,285,090; 7,502,643; 7,689,437; 7,959,587 (Stivoric, Teller, Farringdon, et al.)

These teach a body‑worn device with multiple sensors (accelerometer, heart rate, skin temperature, GSR, heat flux), derivation of physiological and contextual parameters from raw sensor data, archiving to a database, and presentation of derived parameters in relation to entered information, life‑activity data, or a user objective (e.g., weight‑management energy balance). The published family member is summarized publicly as "a system for detecting, monitoring, and reporting an individual's physiological or contextual status… able to present the derived parameter in relation to any other sensed parameters, entered information, life activities data, or other derived data," including a weight‑management embodiment directed to achieving an optimum or preselected energy balance between calories consumed and energy expended, with predictive feedback on progress toward the goal. https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/postsmartphone-wearables-iot-devices-patent-wars-current-status/49639621 This is, in substance, "acquire sensed parameters → derive values → compare against a user‑set objective → present progress."

B. Kahn et al. family — motion‑derived activity quantification

• US 7,343,260; 7,457,719; 7,647,195; 7,647,196; 7,653,508; 7,662,065; 7,690,556; 7,705,723

These teach converting accelerometer data into activity/caloric metrics ("human activity monitoring device"), including step counting and intensity assessment — i.e., the conversion of raw motion into a normalized, comparable unit of activity.

C. Chronological/archival and device‑infrastructure art

• US 5,246,643 (Inaba); 5,692,501 (Minturn); 6,013,007 (Root); 6,139,494 (Cairnes); 6,356,940 (Short); 6,486,801 / 6,714,859 / 6,904,359 / 6,952,645 / 7,030,781 / 7,400,970 (Jones — location/time‑stamped tracking); 7,306,567 (Loree); 7,336,187 (Hubbard); 7,364,445 (Ni); 7,655,508 (Johnson); 7,276,802 / 7,101,752 (chip packaging/oscillator).

D. Non‑patent prior art of the same art and problem

• Commercial wrist/armband trackers with goal‑and‑score dashboards were on sale well before June 2011 (BodyMedia BodyBugg/GoWear fit; Fitbit (2009); Nike+ with user‑set distance/time goals (2006); Jawbone UP shipped in late 2011).
• The HCI literature — notably Consolvo et al., "Flowers or a Robot's Arm? UbiFit Garden" (CHI 2008) — discloses a wearable‑sensor‑driven display where three distinct activity types (walking, cardio, strength) are tracked against user‑set goals, with the display representing attainment relative to goal. This is textbook § 102(b)/§ 103 art for element 1[e].
• The "points" abstraction — normalizing heterogeneous behaviors (food choices, calories, fat, fiber; later activity) into a single common currency compared against a personal daily target — was the core of commercial weight‑management programs decades before 2011 (e.g., Weight Watchers POINTS).

E. Applicant's own admissions in the specification (usable against the claims). The '275 specification frames the problem as: conventional fitness watches, HRMs, GPS monitors, pedometers, and the like "are generally manufactured for conditions that occur in a single or small groupings of activities," and that these conventional devices "do not provide effective solutions to users in terms of providing a comprehensive view of one's overall health or wellness as a result of a combined analysis of data gathered." That is an express statement of the known problem the claims address — and KSR/In re Kahn both permit the known problem itself to supply the motivation to combine.

5. Differences between the claims and the prior art

Assuming the reconstruction in §2 is accurate, the differences are narrow:

1. Nothing in 1[a] or 1[b] is novel over group A alone (profile + target + worn multi‑sensor device).
2. Nothing in 1[d]/1[e] is novel over group A + group B (derived values aggregated to a metric and shown against a goal).
3. The only arguable point of novelty is 1[c] + the weighting scheme — the use of reference values set forth in the profile to normalize each parameter subset into a common "point"/step‑equivalent scale (e.g., equating one step to 0.0001, weighting deep sleep above other sleep, time‑modulating positive and negative contributions), then aggregating into a single score displayed relative to a single target. See the disclosure at FIG. 8 (activity/sleep/meal/miscellaneous values normalized to "numbers of steps" → aggregate value 830).

That is a design choice of scoring currency and weighting coefficients — the classic subject matter KSR treats as obvious where the art discloses the structure and the parameters are recognized as tuneable.

6. Obviousness grounds

Ground 1 — Stivoric/Teller (US 7,285,090 or US 6,605,038) in view of Kahn (US 7,653,508 or US 7,457,719)

Motivation. Both references are in the same field (wearable physiological/activity monitoring) and address the same problem ("give the user a meaningful readout of how much activity they're getting versus what they should get"). The '275 specification itself concedes that the art lacked a "comprehensive view of one's overall health or wellness as a result of a combined analysis of data gathered" — that is the stated design need. KSR rationale: (A) combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) known technique (goal‑relative display) improving a similar device in the same way.

Ground 2 — Ground 1 further in view of Teller (US 7,689,437 or US 7,261,690), for the multi‑category aggregation and weighting limitations

The dependent claims requiring more than one category of health activity (e.g., activity + sleep + nutrition aggregated into one score) are met by the Teller/Stivoric family's multi‑parameter architecture (the same device derives multiple distinct physiological/contextual parameters, which are archived and reported together). Adding Kahn's activity metric to a device already computing multiple parameters is mere combination of a finite set of identified, predictable sensors/metrics — KSR rationale (E). The weighting/expiration of points (FIG. 8's step‑equivalents; FIG. 10's time‑dependent point expiration) is an optimization of known parameters, which In re Geiger-type reasoning treats as obvious absent unexpected results.

Ground 3 — Ground 1 or 2 further in view of Farringdon (US 7,502,643) and/or the BodyMedia sleep‑derivation disclosures, for the sleep‑manager limitations

Farringdon et al. teach deriving sleep‑related states and classifying sleep/wake and sleep quality from body‑worn sensor data (accelerometer + physiological). Claims reciting a sleep parameter subset folded into the aggregate score are therefore met. Motivation: sleep and activity are the two canonical inputs to "energy balance/readiness" products, and the '275 specification itself asserts the benefit of combining sleep metrics with activity metrics (FIG. 8's sleep weighting; FIG. 10's sleep graph 1018). Combining them is the stated purpose of the invention, i.e., the "genesis" of the invention is in the prior art.

Ground 4 — Kahn in view of Kahn ('260 mechanism/caloric‑expenditure art) plus the Jones location/time‑stamping art (US 6,486,801; 7,030,781; 7,400,970) for the environmental/context and archiving claims

Any claims reciting time‑stamped, location‑associated or environmental context parameters (the environmental manager / archived‑parameter features) are met by Jones' location‑ and time‑based tracking art combined with the BodyMedia derivation engine. Motivation: providing context to activity data (where/when the activity occurred) was the express purpose of the Jones references and a natural improvement to a wellness score.

Ground 5 — Any of Grounds 1–4 in view of the published non‑patent prior art on goal‑relative activity displays (UbiFit Garden, CHI 2008) and points‑based normalization (Weight Watchers POINTS)

UbiFit Garden supplies element 1[e] directly and expressly — a wearable‑sensor‑fed display of three activity types measured against user‑set goals. POINTS supplies the reference‑value‑normalized common currency aggregated against a personal daily target (element 1[c] + 1[d]/1[e]). Motivation: normalizing heterogeneous inputs to one score is the recognized way to answer the very question the '275 patent poses ("what is my overall wellness?"), and the art taught it for food and for activity.

7. Summary of KSR rationales

8. Anticipated patent‑owner rebuttals (and their weaknesses)

1. "No motivation to combine; hindsight." Weak. The references share a field and a problem, and the '275 specification's own statement of the deficiency in conventional devices supplies the articulated rationale. KSR permits the known problem to motivate the combination.
2. "The aggregate score / common currency is not taught." Partially answered by the POINTS/UbiFit non‑patent art and by FIG. 8's own concession that the conversion is arbitrary (equating a step to 0.0001). An arbitrary scaling constant reciting no technical effect is the weakest possible basis for patentability.
3. "Secondary considerations — commercial success of Jawbone UP/Fitbit." This is the strongest PO argument, and in the companion case IPR2016‑00607 the Board found Fitbit proved claims 16–26 of the '811 patent unpatentable notwithstanding such arguments. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-00607/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8529811/docs/08-15-2017-Board/Final_Decision-37-Final_Written_Decision.pdf Any commercial‑success case requires a nexus to the claimed score normalization, not merely to the band's industrial design or app ecosystem.
4. § 101 overlay. The ITC affirmed that these claims are directed to ineligible subject matter. That does not decide § 103, but it strongly undercuts any argument that the score/aggregation scheme is a technological contribution sufficient to defeat an otherwise strong prima facie case.

9. Confidence, caveats, and limits of this analysis

• High confidence: the identity of the references on the patent's face; the priority/filing dates; that pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs; that IPR2016‑00714 (Fitbit v. AliphCom, '275) was filed 2016‑03‑04, instituted 2016‑09‑15, and terminated by a paper styled "Final Written Decision 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" on 2017‑09‑13.
• Moderate confidence / not verified: the substantive outcome of IPR2016‑00714. The docket entry I retrieved is labeled Termination Decision / Final Written Decision, and the Patexia summary's "Claims Invalidated" field was empty — which is consistent with either a merits decision or a termination (e.g., settlement/adverse judgment) and I will not guess. I likewise could not retrieve the specific ground-by-ground reference list from Fitbit's '275 petition.
• Not verified: the exact wording of claims 2–19. My element mapping uses the abstract plus public family summaries. A formal § 103 chart must be run against the literal claim text, and against the actual reference disclosures (specific columns/figures), before any invalidity contention is served.
• I have deliberately not asserted the content of references whose disclosure I could not confirm from retrieved material beyond their titles/abstracts (e.g., the specific Kahn '260 mechanism).
• Per your instruction, all identifiers above are reproduced literally as found (e.g., App. No. 13/454,040; priority 2011‑06‑10; IPR 2016‑00714; IPR 2024‑00241; ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑963) and have not been normalized or corrected.

Bottom line. On the record as cited, the '275 claims are a textbook KSR case: the wearable multi‑sensor platform, the derivation of parameters, the goal‑relative presentation, and the normalization of heterogeneous inputs into a common scored currency were each squarely in the prior art (predominantly the applicant's own‑field Stivoric/Teller/BodyMedia and Kahn references, plus non‑patent activity‑display and points‑system art), and the remaining differences are matters of arbitrary scaling constants, weighting coefficients, and aggregation order — predictable design choices in an art under strong commercial pressure to unify wellness tracking into a single user‑facing score.