US 8750974

I'll run several targeted searches to verify the patent record and check for any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check the litigation/IPR track and any Federal Circuit appeal activity specific to '974.

US 8,750,974 — Verified Summary

I searched literally for the identifier string "8750974" (not a normalized/similar number). Note: the same digit string also appears as an IMO number for a drilling rig and as an SEC filing key for Loja k Corporation (CIK 355777); those are unrelated coincidental matches and are excluded. The results below pertain only to U.S. Patent No. 8,750,974 B2.

Bibliographic record

Continuity: 14/103,219 is a divisional of 13/488,520 (issued as US 8,630,699), which is a continuation of 11/591,619 (issued as US 8,214,007). Later family members continuing from the '974 include US 8,965,492, 9,155,484, 9,433,366, 9,877,663, 10,159,422, and 10,939,839.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for providing high voltage circuit protection for a patient monitor. The method includes providing a substrate that supports one or more electrical connections to a patient's body. The method further includes determining a print pattern and thickness of a first material having a first resistivity to be printed on the substrate, determining a print pattern and thickness of a second material having a second resistivity to be printed on the substrate, printing the first material onto the substrate, and printing the second material onto the substrate wherein at least part of the second the material overlays the first material."

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8750974/en and https://FreePatentsOnline.com/8750974.html

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important caveat: the full-text record I retrieved for US 8,750,974 (Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline) supplied the abstract, summary of invention, and detailed description, but not the verbatim claim set. I therefore cannot give you the literal claim language or an authoritative independent-claim count for the '974 patent. What follows is grounded in (a) the summary-of-invention structure and (b) the abstract, which matches one of the two stated aspects.

1. Apparatus claim — body-worn physiological monitor (per the "According to one aspect" passage). A body-worn patient monitoring device with: at least one disposable module carrying multiple electrical connections coupled to the patient's skin to measure physiological signals, plus a disposable-module connector; at least one internal or external power source; and at least one communication-computation module having a mating connector to receive the physiological signals, at least one microprocessor that actively monitors the patient and performs real-time physiological analysis, and a radio circuit that transmits either the raw physiological signal or the analysis result at a predetermined time or on a predetermined event to a remote radio receiver. The disposable module is mechanically and electrically coupled directly to the communication-computation module, and the assembled unit is directly, non-permanently affixed to the patient's skin.

2. Method claim — high-voltage/defibrillation circuit protection by printed overlays (matches the abstract). A method of providing high-voltage circuit protection for a body-worn monitor: provide a substrate supporting electrical connections to the patient's body; determine a print pattern and thickness of a first material having a first resistivity; determine a print pattern and thickness of a second material having a second resistivity; print the first material onto the substrate; and print the second material so that at least part of the second material overlays the first material. In the specification this corresponds to screened carbon (resistive) traces/bodies with a conductive (e.g., silver) layer printed over them — e.g., the carbon annulus overlaid by conductive surface 404 (FIG. 4C), which suppresses arcing at the carbon/conductor interface.

Corroborating context for why the method aspect likely sits in this divisional: the PCT international search report for PCT/US2007/083156 (WO 2008/057884 A2) identified lack of unity and defined "Group 2 Claims 45-48" as directed to exactly this special technical feature — "a method of providing high voltage circuit protection including the steps of determining the print patterns and thicknesses of a first material with a first resistivity and second material with a second resistivity." Separating that group out is consistent with the '974 divisional being carved from the '699 parent on that subject matter. This is an inference from the record, not verified claim text.

Litigation and docket status (as of April 26, 2026)

• District court: Welch Allyn, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., D. Del. 1:24-cv-00224-MN (filed Feb. 20, 2024). The Second Amended Complaint (Feb. 13, 2025) pleads Count VI — Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,750,974, asserting at least claim 1 against iRhythm's Zio Monitor family (Zio AT, Zio XT, next-generation Zio). The '974 was attached as Exhibit 37. Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68264975/38/welch-allyn-inc-v-irhythm-technologies-inc/ and https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16022516
• PTAB (not directed at '974): iRhythm's December 2024 petitions were IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378. The mandatory notice in IPR2025-00378 identifies the challenged patent as U.S. Patent No. 8,214,007 — not the '974 — and merely lists 8,750,974 among related patents. On June 6, 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied institution in all five proceedings on "settled expectations" grounds. I found no IPR challenging 8,750,974 itself.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or opinion in 2026 referencing US 8,750,974 or application 14/103,219. Two structural reasons: (i) IPR institution decisions are not appealable (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)), so the June 2025 denials do not generate a CAFC appeal; and (ii) the Delaware case was on a March 22, 2027 trial track, so no judgment-based appeal could yet exist. Treat this as no evidence found, not as affirmative proof that no such filing exists — my search was limited to web-indexed sources and not a direct PACER/CM-ECF or USPTO PatentCenter query.

Uncertainty flags

• Verbatim claim text of the '974 patent was not available in the sources retrieved; the independent-claim overview above is reconstructed from the abstract and summary of invention. Do not rely on it as claim-chart-accurate.
• The anticipated expiration date (2026-11-01) comes from Google Patents' automated legal-status field, which the site itself disclaims as an assumption and not a legal conclusion; any patent term adjustment or terminal disclaimer could affect it.
• No live PatentCenter/PAIR transaction-history inspection was performed, so I cannot confirm current fee/maintenance status, any certificate of correction, or reexamination history for the '974 patent.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8750974. Let me start with the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig into the specific Delaware case and other litigation databases.

I found the core case. Let me verify the IPR proceedings and the current status.

Litigation Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,750,974 ("Body Worn Physiological Sensor Device Having a Disposable Electrode Module")

Prepared: April 26, 2026 | Patent-in-suit: U.S. 8,750,974 ("the '974 patent"), assigned to Welch Allyn, Inc.

Executive summary

Based on my searches, one litigation is known to involve U.S. Patent No. 8,750,974 — a patent-infringement action filed by Welch Allyn, Inc. against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The '974 patent was not part of the original complaint; it was added mid-case as one of two "Newly Asserted Patents" via a Second Amended Complaint in February 2025.

I want to be transparent: I hit my search-tool limit before I could fully pull PACER/PTAB dockets, so the status details below reflect the docket aggregators I did retrieve. I flag where verification is incomplete.

Case 1 — Welch Allyn, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (the only known case)

How the '974 patent came into the case

• The original complaint (Feb. 20, 2024) asserted a first set of patents.
• The First Amended Complaint asserted four patents — referred to in the pleadings as the '007, '492, '484, and '422 patents.
• On February 7, 2025, Welch Allyn notified iRhythm of its intent to add two additional, related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,699 ("the '699 patent") and 8,750,974 ("the '974 patent") — collectively the "Newly Asserted Patents."
• By stipulation filed February 13, 2025 (D.I. 35), the parties agreed Welch Allyn could file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserting those two new patents. iRhythm's Answer to the SAC (D.I. 45) expressly denies infringement and asserts non-infringement and invalidity defenses as to the '974 patent (its "Seventh Defense: Non-Infringement ('974 Patent)" and "Thirteenth Defense: Invalidity ('974 Patent)"), so the '974 patent is actively in suit.

Procedural posture / schedule (from the Jan. 15, 2025 Scheduling Order, D.I. 25)

• Fact discovery completed Jan. 16, 2026
• Claim-construction briefing through April 7, 2026
• Markman hearing set for May 5, 2026 (Courtroom 4A)
• Pretrial conference March 15, 2027; 5-day jury trial set for March 22, 2027
• Note: The scheduling order predates the stay flag; the case appears to have been stayed pending the IPRs. The ultimate schedule should be confirmed on PACER.

Related PTAB proceedings (context)

• Per the parties' stipulation, iRhythm filed inter partes reviews against the four patents originally asserted in the First Amended Complaint. The stipulation notes iRhythm expressly reserved the right to argue whether a stay should remain in place if those IPRs are instituted, and reserved its rights to seek dismissal of the Newly Asserted Patents (including the '974).
• I could not confirm from the retrieved sources whether any IPR petition specifically targets the '974 patent. The stipulation language strongly implies the IPRs were directed at the four originally asserted patents, not the '974 or '699. This should be verified on the PTAB docket.

Cross-references and cautions (important for accuracy)

1. *Do not confuse this with Bardy Diagnostics, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., 1:24-cv-01355-JDW (D. Del.).* That is a separate, related-party case (Welch Allyn/Hill-Rom owns Bardy), but it involves entirely different patents (Bardy's '473, '562, '261, '735 patents and iRhythm's '734, '554, '277, '859, '860, '819, '856 patents). The '974 patent is not asserted in the Bardy case.

2. Google Patents "family litigation" data for the '974 patent independently lists exactly one U.S. case — the Delaware District Court case 1:24-cv-00224 (via the Unified Patents litigation dataset), and lists a "first worldwide family litigation" entry under Darts-ip family 39365227. This corroborates that the Delaware action is the only known litigation for the '974 patent/family.

3. Prior Welch Allyn litigation is unrelated. For example, Welch Allyn, Inc. v. OBP Corporation / OBP Medical Inc. (N.D.N.Y., No. 5:14-cv-01122) concerned speculum/other patents — not the '974 patent.

4. The assignment/security-interest history is not litigation. The recorded transfers (JPMorgan Chase security interests; FITLINXX, Inc.; LUMIRADX UK LTD; the 2021 release; etc.) reflect collateral and assignment activity, not lawsuits.

Bottom line

• Known litigation involving U.S. 8,750,974: one case.
  • Welch Allyn, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00224-MN (D. Del.), filed Feb. 20, 2024; the '974 patent added via Second Amended Complaint in Feb. 2025; status: pending and flagged stayed (IPRs pending on the originally asserted patents); if litigated, trial is calendared for March 22, 2027.
• No other litigation asserting the '974 patent was identified in any source searched.

Caveats: (a) I was unable to complete direct PACER/PTAB pulls before reaching my search limit, so the precise current stay status and any IPR numbers targeting the '974 patent should be confirmed on PACER and the PTAB docket; (b) litigation databases can lag by days or weeks; (c) docket-aggregator labels ("Closed"/"Open"/"STAYED") conflicted, with "STAYED" being the most detailed and most recent indication. If you need a sworn/verified status, I recommend a fresh PACER docket report for 1:24-cv-00224-MN and a PTAB proceeding search by patent number.

I'll start by checking the structured data (already given) and running targeted searches to see whether any AIA trial proceedings exist on this patent.

Let me investigate the flagged litigation and search for any PTAB docket tied to this patent family.

Important lead: this patent is being asserted in Welch Allyn v. iRhythm (D. Del.), where the parties reference iRhythm's IPRs against "the four originally asserted patents." Let me pin down which patents those IPRs target.

I've completed research. Key finding up front: the ODP block is correct — there are no AIA trial proceedings on US 8,750,974. But the patent sits inside a family that was heavily attacked in IPR2025, and that story is directly relevant to any defendant. Here is the analysis.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings naming US 8,750,974: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding in which US 8,750,974 is the challenged patent — no institution decision, no FWD, no settlement, no appeal. The patent is entirely untested at the PTAB.

The relevant context is that the same patent family was hit with five IPRs (IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, -00378), all filed by iRhythm Technologies in December 2024 against four Welch Allyn family members — none of which is the '974 patent. All five were denied institution on discretionary grounds on 2025-06-06 by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, before any merits panel ever read the prior art. So the family's PTAB scoreboard is: 0 claims canceled, 0 claims sustained, 0 FWDs, 5 discretionary institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened" patent and not a "dead-claims" patent — it is an un-adjudicated patent. No claim of '974 has been canceled, so no demand letter is sanction-bait, but you also get zero PTAB roadmap and zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel to work with. The one decisive fact a defendant must price in is the anticipated expiration date of 2026-11-01 recorded in the structured data (approximately five weeks from today), which may moot most forward-looking infringement exposure regardless of validity.

IPR2025-00363 / -00374 / -00376 / -00377 / -00378 — iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v. Welch Allyn, Inc.

⚠️ Threshold caution: these proceedings do NOT name US 8,750,974. They are listed because (a) they are the only PTAB activity in this family, (b) they were filed as the defensive response in the very litigation that asserts '974, and (c) the discretionary denial reasoning in them is the single best predictor of what would happen to an IPR petition against '974 today. Do not cite them as proceedings "on '974."

• Type: Inter Partes Review (five separate petitions)

• Patents actually challenged (verbatim from the 2025-06-06 decision caption):

  • IPR2025-00363 — Patent 10,159,422 B2
  • IPR2025-00374 — Patent 8,965,492 B2
  • IPR2025-00376 — Patent 9,155,484 B2
  • IPR2025-00377 — Patent 8,214,007 B2
  • IPR2025-00378 — Patent 8,214,007 B2 (second petition on the same patent)
  • Note: US 8,214,007 is the parent of US 8,750,974 (the '974 patent is a divisional of Ser. No. 13/488,520, itself a continuation of Ser. No. 11/591,619, which issued as the '007 patent). The other three challenged patents are all in the same 2006-11-01 priority family.

• Filed: 2024-12 (reported as filed "ten months later in December 2024," within the one-year § 315(b) window from service of the 2024-02-20 complaint).

• Status: Institution denied — discretionary denial, 2025-06-06. Verbatim disposition: "Granting Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial and Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review … Accordingly, the petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. §314(a)."

• Judge panel: No APJ panel ever reached these. Decided solely by the Acting Director: "Before Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office." This reflects the USPTO's 2025 bifurcated procedure — Director decides discretionary factors at step 1; a merits panel only sees the petition if it survives.

• Petition grounds: Never adjudicated and never reached. The decision does not identify claims, references, or § 102/§ 103/§ 112 theories, because denial was purely discretionary. I could not verify the asserted art from the public record and will not guess at it.

• Institution decision: Denied, 2025-06-06 (Director Discretionary Decision, Paper 10). The reasoning in the Director's own words:

  "Several arguments weigh against discretionary denial. For example, the projected final written decision due date in the Board proceedings is August 12, 2026, yet the district court's trial date is not until March 22, 2027. … There also appears to be little investment by the parties in the district court proceeding and a high likelihood of a stay if an inter partes review is instituted."

  And the pivot that carried the day:

  "Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that because one of the patents has been in force since as early as 2012 and Petitioner was aware of it as early as 2013—having cited the then-pending application that issued as the challenged patent in an Information Disclosure Statement Petitioner filed in its own patent application—settled expectations favor denial of institution. … Petitioner's awareness of Patent Owner's applications and failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial and outweighs the above-discussed considerations."

  In other words: every Fintiv factor favored institution, and the petitions were still denied — on a brand-new "settled expectations"/laches-like ground first articulated in the USPTO's 2025-03-26 Interim Process memo, applied retroactively to petitions already on file.

• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim of any of the four family patents was canceled or confirmed. There is no claim-level disposition to quote for any of these five proceedings.

• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement. Terminated by Director-level institution denial. (Welch Allyn and iRhythm remain in active litigation, so no settlement terms exist to report.)

• Appeal: Institution denials are unreviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (see Thryv), so there is no Federal Circuit appeal. The only avenue was Director Review, and iRhythm did pursue it: a "Petitioners' Request for Director Review" covering all five proceedings is dated 2025-07-03. I could not verify the outcome of that request — because the 2025-06-06 denial was itself issued by the Acting Director, the request is procedurally unusual. Flagging as unconfirmed rather than asserting a result.

• Defensive value: High as a timing warning, low as an invalidity roadmap. These five denials are the reason a strategic defendant should not assume an IPR on '974 is a live option: the Board never engaged the merits, so their petitions bought iRhythm nothing except delay and ~10 months of one-year-clock burn. Conversely, because no FWD issued, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attached to iRhythm or Welch Allyn from these proceedings.

Litigation context on US 8,750,974 (not a PTAB proceeding, but the reason it matters)

• Case: Welch Allyn, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., D. Del. 1:24-cv-00224 (Judge Maryellen Noreika), complaint filed 2024-02-20.
• '974 was a late addition. Per the parties' stipulation at D.I. 35 (filed 2025-02-13), Welch Allyn gave notice on 2025-02-07 of intent to amend to assert two additional patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,699 and 8,750,974 — via a stipulated Second Amended Complaint.
• Critically, the stipulation states defendants' position verbatim: "…without admission that inclusion of the Newly Asserted Patents in this action has any bearing on whether this Court should stay the action in view of the inter partes reviews Defendants have already filed against the four originally asserted patents if they are instituted." The five IPRs above cover only the four originally asserted patents — '974 was never in them.
• Docket activity through early 2026 (deposition notices, Joint Claim Construction Chart, Markman briefing with a 10-term cap ordered 2026-01-27) indicates the Delaware case remained live. I saw one aggregator flag the case as "STAYED," but the 2026 docket entries are inconsistent with a stay; I could not confirm the current stay status and flag it as unresolved.

Strategic summary

Claim status on '974: everything is UNTESTED. Not a single claim of US 8,750,974 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. There are no "surviving claims" to list because there was never a challenge. Contrast this with the parent '007 patent (8,214,007) and siblings 8,965,492, 9,155,484, and 10,159,422 — those four were petitioned against but their claims likewise emerged untouched, because the petitions died at the discretionary gate.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) is a non-issue here. Estoppel attaches only after a final written decision. Because all five family IPRs were denied institution, no IPR estoppel — statutory or Shaw-type — binds anyone. iRhythm retains every invalidity ground in Delaware, and any future defendant retains every ground at the PTAB and in court. The practical corollary is the mirror image: a defendant gets no free ride from prior PTAB work product either. There is no FWD, no Board claim construction, and no Board obviousness finding to borrow.

Pattern signals. (1) One petitioner, iRhythm, filed five IPRs on this family in a single month — a shotgun approach, not a focused one, and it was punished at the discretionary stage. (2) No defensive aggregator — Unified Patents appears nowhere in this chain; no third party has independently challenged any member of the family. (3) The patent owner, Welch Allyn, is the aggressor, not a defensive PTAB appellant, and it won the institution phase decisively by running a 35-page discretionary-denial request built on an IDS trail. (4) The one number that dominates: the structured record shows an anticipated expiration of 2026-11-01. If that holds (subject to any PTA and to the usual caveat that Google Patents labels it an assumption, not a legal conclusion), the patent has roughly five weeks of forward-looking life, which likely reframes the entire dispute around pre-expiration damages.

Recommended next steps

• Do not cite the family IPRs as invalidating anything. If you are a defendant and opposing counsel waves IPR2025-00363 et al. at you, the accurate rebuttal is that no FWD issued and no claim was canceled — the Board never reached the merits. The June 6, 2025 decision is public and quotable; a copy of the full text is at vLex/Vitallaw, and the five proceeding numbers on the PTAB docketing system are at PTAB E2E.
• Check the expiration date first. Confirm actual expiration with the USPTO Patent Center (including any patent term adjustment) before spending on validity work. If '974 expires 2026-11-01, your exposure is a bounded pre-expiration damages window, and a reexamination or IPR may be uneconomic relative to defending the damages case.
• If you do file an IPR on '974, the § 315(b) clock is pet-specific and easy to get wrong. iRhythm's clock on '974 was triggered by the Second Amended Complaint served after the 2025-02-13 stipulation, not the 2024-02-20 original complaint — a fact worth confirming on your own service record. Note the general rule that a new patent added by amended complaint starts a fresh one-year window.
• Assume discretionary denial is the default. The iRhythm ruling means a petitioner with any documented prior awareness of the '974 family (an IDS citation, a licensing deck, a notice letter, public prosecution records) faces a "settled expectations" denial that overrides Fintiv factors. If you are a long-time market participant in ambulatory cardiac monitoring, expect this argument and build a record on why you did not act earlier — i.e., Welch Allyn's dormancy. That exact argument was made in iRhythm's 2025-07-03 Request for Director Review and, as of this writing, has not produced publicly confirmed relief.
• Verify the Director Review outcome before relying on the denial as final. Commentators analyzing the decision include Winston & Strawn, Crowell & Moring, and Dentons. If the request were granted and the five IPRs reinstated on the merits, the family — though still not '974 itself — could produce FWDs with estoppel consequences.

Confidence caveats, stated plainly: I confirmed the absence of PTAB proceedings on '974 only from the ODP block supplied to me plus web searching; I did not independently query the PTAB API. I could not confirm (a) the outcome of iRhythm's 2025-07-03 Director Review request, (b) the current stay status of D. Del. 1:24-cv-00224, or (c) the specific prior art asserted in the five denied petitions, since the decision did not reach it. I have not asserted any of those.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 8,750,974. Let me run targeted searches against the USPTO assignment data, the corporate-history record, and NPE directories.

US 8,750,974 B2 — Assignment / Ownership Reconstruction

Scope note / limitation: I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center record directly in this session. The chain below is reconstructed from (a) the Google Patents legal-events block reproduced in the patent file, (b) PlainSite's USPTO-assignment mirrors (plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html), and (c) a TTAB exhibit reproducing a parallel Welch Allyn/JPMorgan assignment history. Reel/frame values I could not retrieve are marked [R/F not retrieved] rather than guessed. Where two reel series appear for the same Hill-Rom/Welch Allyn transaction, I flag that below — the 4-digit "6734/xxxx" series in the TTAB exhibit appears to be the trademark-side recording of the same credit facility, not the patent recording.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence found of inventors departing the original assignee near filing. All three are named on Welch Allyn-funded work; there is no inventor-assignment-to-a-third-party and no individual-inventor ownership on the record. Nothing anomalous. (No live employment/retention data was retrievable, so this is a "no evidence found" call, not affirmative proof.)

Original assignee

Welch Allyn, Inc. (Skaneateles Falls, NY; organized in New York).

• Ships products embodying the claims? Yes. Welch Allyn commercialized the body-worn/Micropaq monitoring line, and today — through its Bardy Diagnostics division (acquired by Hill-Rom in January 2021) — manufactures and sells the Bardy CAM Patch, an ambulatory cardiac monitor. Welch Allyn is also a long-standing supplier of patient-monitoring systems to the U.S. Armed Forces (2019: 5-year, ~$100M contract). Source: RPX Insight copy of the Second Amended Complaint, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16022516
• Primary line of business: medical diagnostic instruments and connected patient-monitoring/vital-signs equipment.
• Current status: Operating, not dissolved, not bankrupt. Welch Allyn was acquired by Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. effective September 8, 2015 (merger of Empire Merger Sub Corp. into Welch Allyn, Inc., which survived as a Hill-Rom subsidiary; ~$2.05B consideration) — per Hill-Rom's Form 8-K of 2015-09-08. Hill-Rom in turn was acquired by Baxter International Inc., closing December 2021, and now operates as Baxter's Hillrom/Welch Allyn business. Welch Allyn, Inc. remains the assignee of record on the '974.

Assignment timeline

Headline finding: No conveyance of title to US 8,750,974 out of Welch Allyn, Inc. appears anywhere in the recorded chain. Every post-2015 record is either a collateral (security) interest in favor of Welch Allyn's/Hill-Rom's lenders, a release of such an interest, or an unrelated third-party security agreement that is expressly identified as an erroneous scheduling and was corrected. The assignee of record today remains Welch Allyn, Inc.

1. 2015-09-08 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-10 — Reel [R/F not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of security interest in patents, collateral only — not a transfer of title)
   • Assignor: Allen Medical Systems, Inc.; Aspen Surgical Products, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc.; Welch Allyn, Inc.
   • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent (10 South Dearborn, Floor L2, IL1-1145, Chicago, IL 60603)
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Securitization — collateral grant securing Hill-Rom's Credit Agreement dated 2015-09-08 that financed the $2.1B Welch Allyn acquisition (JPMorgan as Term Loan A/Revolver Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent).

2. 2016-09-21 (executed) / recorded 2016-09-26 — Reel [R/F not retrieved]

   • Conveyance: Security Agreement
   • Assignor: Allen Medical Systems, Inc.; Aspen Surgical Products, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc.; Welch Allyn, Inc.
   • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Refinancing — matches the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated September 21, 2016 (JPMorgan lead agent; Sumitomo Mitsui, Wells Fargo, Fifth Third, Scotiabank as co-syndication agents). No change in beneficial ownership.

3. 2016-12-01 (executed) / recorded 2016-12-20 — Reel 041038/0102

   • Conveyance: Security Agreement
   • Assignor: LUMIRADX UK LTD (then Lumira Ltd, UK)
   • Assignee: FITLINXX, INC. (Connecticut)
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: ANOMALOUS — third-party lien, not a transfer. This is an encumbrance granted by a diagnostics/activity-monitor company (LumiraDx) to a Connecticut fitness-tech lender (FitLinxx). It has no commercial relationship to the Welch Allyn ECG family and appears on this family's record as an erroneous Schedule 1 inclusion (see entry 4). Flagging explicitly so it is not mistaken for an NPE transfer. Nothing in this instrument conveyed title — it is a security agreement.

4. 2017-08-10 (recorded) — Reel 043516/0799

   • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment — recited verbatim as: "CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO DELETE ERRONEOUSLY SCHEDULE 1 INCLUDED PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS NUMBER PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 041038 FRAME 0102. ASSIGNOR(S) HEREBY CONFIRMS THE SECURITY INTEREST."
   • Assignor: LUMIRADX UK LTD (rendered "LUMINRADX UK LTD" in the Google Patents scrape)
   • Assignee: FITLINXX, INC.
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Correction of an erroneous lien schedule. This entry is the clearest evidence that the LumiraDx/FitLinxx records touching this family were mistaken inclusions, not ownership events.

5. 2019-07-06 (executed) / recorded 2019-07-22 — Reel 049822/0858

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party (termination and release of the 041038/0102 security interest); executed by David P. Monahan, President and CEO of FitLinxx, Inc.; Delaware governing law.
   • Assignor: FITLINXX, INC.
   • Assignee: LUMIRADX UK LTD
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Housekeeping termination of the anomalous third-party lien (entry 3).

6. 2019-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-03 — Reel [R/F not retrieved; patent-side]

   • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
   • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
   • Assignee (released parties): Mortara Instrument Services, Inc.; Anodyne Medical Device, Inc.; Allen Medical Systems, Inc.; Voalte, Inc.; Hill-Rom Company, Inc.; Mortara Instrument, Inc.; Welch Allyn, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc.; Hill-Rom, Inc.
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Refinancing — release of the 2015/2016 security interests on closing of the 2019 Credit Agreement (Hill-Rom Holdings as lead borrower, Welch Allyn, Inc. as co-borrower).

7. 2019-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-04 — Reel 050260/0644

   • Conveyance: Security Agreement
   • Assignor: Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.; Hill-Rom, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc.; Allen Medical Systems, Inc.; Anodyne Medical Device, Inc.; Voalte, Inc.; Welch Allyn, Inc.
   • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Collateral Agent)
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Securitization — replacement collateral grant under the Credit Agreement dated August 30, 2019. Reel/frame is confirmed because it is the instrument named in the 2021 release (entry 8).
   • Parallel recording note: a TTAB exhibit reproduces a same-transaction chain at reels 67340/0332 (release, recorded 2019-08-30) and 67340/0788 (security agreement, recorded 2019-09-03). Those are word-for-word the Hill-Rom/Welch Allyn credit-facility instruments but sit in a different reel series and are referenced in a trademark opposition, i.e. the trademark-side counterparts of the same facility. Do not treat 67340/0788 and 050260/0644 as two separate liens.

8. 2021-12-13 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-14 — Release instrument reel [not retrieved]; releases Reel/Frame 050260/0644

   • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest at Reel/Frame 050260/0644
   • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
   • Assignee (released parties): Hill-Rom, Inc.; Allen Medical Systems, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc.; Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.; Voalte, Inc.; Welch Allyn, Inc.; Breathe Technologies, Inc.; Bardy Diagnostics, Inc.
   • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
   • Context: Refinancing/change of control — retired as part of Baxter International's acquisition of Hill-Rom (closed December 2021).

Correspondent-of-record finding: In this session I was unable to retrieve the recording correspondent (attorney/firm) for any of the eight entries. I will not guess at names. If you need the correspondent column populated, it must be pulled directly from each supporting document PDF in Assignment Center (e.g. assignment-tm-050260-0644.pdf). For the record, the names appearing in this file are litigation counsel, not recording correspondents: K&L Gates LLP (Jeffrey R. Gargano, Devon C. Beane, Melissa M. Haulcomb, Rebekah Hill, Erik J. Halverson) and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Philip A. Rovner) for plaintiff Welch Allyn.

Post-issuance assignment to an NPE: none found. There is no reel/frame in the record in which Welch Allyn, Inc. (or Hill-Rom/Baxter) is the assignor to a third party.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership and encumbrances of US 8750974
    2006 : Filed by Welch Allyn Inc
    2013 : Divisional application filed
    2014 : Patent issued June 10
    2015 : Hill-Rom buys Welch Allyn
         : JPMorgan security interest recorded
    2016 : Amended security agreement recorded
         : LumiraDx lien erroneously scheduled
    2017 : Corrective assignment deletes error
    2019 : FitLinxx lien released
         : JPMorgan lien released and re granted
    2021 : Hill-Rom bought by Baxter
         : JPMorgan lien released
    2024 : Welch Allyn sues iRhythm
    2026 : Case stayed pending reexamination

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No reel/frame in the chain moves the '974 from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC. The only non-Hill-Rom parties in the record are LumiraDx UK Ltd and FitLinxx, Inc., both operating companies, and both entered the record only via a security agreement (041038/0102) that was correctively deleted (043516/0799) and released (049822/0858). No "IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" transferee appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, MPHJ, Lumen View, Erich Spangenberg entities, or any entity surfaced in Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff directories. The asserting party here is the original operating assignee (Welch Allyn, a Baxter subsidiary), which is the inverse of this signal.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT RETRIEVABLE. Correspondent fields were not available from the sources reachable in this session, so I cannot test recurrence. Do not score this signal either way. (Note: the Hill-Rom credit-facility instruments would each have a single recording correspondent covering hundreds of patents; a plausible repeat is likely but unproven here.)

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. The eight entries span 2015–2021 and consist of liens and releases, not chained conveyances. No assignee shares a correspondent address with another assignee, because no conveyance to an assignee ever occurred. (The LumiraDx↔FitLinxx pairing is a lender/borrower mirror, not an LLC cascade.)

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. First suit naming the '974: Welch Allyn, Inc. v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., D. Del. 1:24-cv-00224-MN, filed 2024-02-20 (Count VI added in the 2025-02-13 Second Amended Complaint, asserting at least claim 1 against the Zio monitors). The nearest preceding recorded event is the 2021-12-14 release at 050260/0644 — more than two years before filing. No assignment within 6 months of suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT as to this patent. Hill-Rom/Baxter were/are solvent; the 2019 and 2021 events are refinancings, not distressed sales. (Aside, not a signal for this patent: LumiraDx later underwent a wind-down/asset sale, but the '974 was never a LumiraDx asset — the 2016 schedule entry was corrected and released.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The party asserting is the product-shipping owner itself (Welch Allyn, through its Bardy Diagnostics division selling the Bardy CAM Patch) suing a direct competitor (iRhythm's Zio AT / Zio XT / Zio). That is classic operating-company competition, not a proxy assertion by a hired NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN, and there is no license-back/neutralization record.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Welch Allyn, Inc. — the original and still-current assignee of record — is suing a direct competitor, iRhythm Technologies, in D. Del. 1:24-cv-00224-MN, on the '974 (Count VI, at least claim 1, against the Zio Monitor), while itself shipping competing ambulatory cardiac monitors through its Bardy Diagnostics division. The only recorded post-issuance entries are collateral security interests and their releases (2015-09-08/2015-09-10 and 2016-09-21/2016-09-26 and 2019-09-04 at Reel 050260/0644, released 2021-12-14), plus an unrelated third-party lien (Reel 041038/0102, LumiraDx→FitLinxx) that was correctively deleted at Reel 043516/0799 and released at Reel 049822/0858. No assignment to any NPE has ever been recorded, so no NPE signal chain exists to score.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html); search 8750974 or application 14/103,219.

Flags for the reader

• The LumiraDx/FitLinxx entries are the one genuine oddity on this record and are the most likely trap for automated NPE screening. They are lien records, one of which the assignor itself certified as an erroneous schedule inclusion, and it was released in 2019. They are not a Welch Allyn divestiture.
• Two reel series appear for the same Hill-Rom credit facility (patent-side 050260/0644 vs. the TTAB-reproduced 67340/0788). Treat these as the patent and trademark recordings of one transaction, not two liens — but confirm in Assignment Center before citing either.
• Reel/frame values marked [not retrieved] and all correspondent names should be pulled directly from Assignment Center before use in a filing.
• Case-status caveat: iRhythm's five IPR petitions (Dec. 2024) were denied institution on 2025-06-06 and Director Review was denied in July 2025; iRhythm then filed ex parte reexaminations, and the USPTO instituted reexam on four of the six asserted Welch Allyn patents on 2026-01-20, with the Delaware case stayed 2026-02-23. I could not confirm whether the '974 is among the four patents in reexam. A settlement of the Delaware action has been reported (Law360, dated August 2026), which if accurate would close the assertion track.

I'll start by pulling the authoritative record for US 8,750,974 and its cited references from multiple USPTO-oriented sources.

I have the family reference lists. Now let me pull the '974 patent's own front-page "(56) References Cited" list from the primary document sources.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,750,974 B2

Before the tables: a sourcing caveat you should weigh.
The full-text record of the '974 that was retrieved earlier in this analysis (Google Patents) did not include the printed front-page "(56) References Cited" list, and it did not include the verbatim claim set. What follows is built on the list published on the FreePatentsOnline record for 8750974 (retrieved literally as https://FreePatentsOnline.com/8750974.html), cross-checked against the front pages of sibling family members that share the same specification and substantially the same citation list. I could not perform a PatentCenter image-document query for the printed '974 front page. Treat the § 102 mapping as provisional.

1. Literal verification of the identifier

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the earlier summary recorded three inventors (from Google Patents). Justia's record for the '974's own pre-grant publication 2014/0100467 lists five, adding Ohlenbusch and Blackadar. This matters for § 102(e)'s "by another" test, because inventorship overlap determines whether family documents can be § 102(e) art. I could not resolve which list is correct from the sources retrieved.

No results were merged from adjacent numbers; every item below traces to the identifier string 8750974 / US 8,750,974.

2. The critical-date framework (this drives everything)

The '974 issued from a divisional whose § 120 chain traces to a U.S. filing of November 1, 2006, so the pre-AIA framework governs (filing before 2013-03-16):

• § 102(b): art must predate 2005-11-01 (one year before the earliest U.S. filing claimed).
• § 102(a): art must predate the applicant's invention date, presumptively 2006-11-01.
• § 102(e): a U.S. patent/granted-or-published application "by another" is art as of its U.S. filing date, if that date precedes 2006-11-01.

Consequence: of the roughly two-dozen references on the '974's list, the great majority carry publication dates of 2007–2010 and are therefore date-ineligible for § 102(a)/(b). They can matter only under § 102(e), as § 103 context, or as material incorporated by reference. This is the single most important finding in this analysis.

3. Cited references on US 8,750,974 — with dates and § 102 exposure

3(a) Third-party U.S. patent documents (2005–2006 publications — the only real § 102(a) window)

3(b) Applicant-related Welch Allyn family documents

3(c) Foreign patent documents (from the family front pages)

EP 0209804 A2 (1987-01); EP 0770349 A1 (1997-05); EP 0910985 A1 (1999-04); JP 11042214 (1999-02); JP 1088546 (1999-02, number garbled in the retrieved record); WO 96/20641 A1 (1996-07); WO 96/29005 A1 (1996-09); WO 97/46156 A1 (1997-12); WO 99/59460 A2 (1999-11); WO 01/89262 A2/A3 (2001-11); WO 01/97868 A1 (2001-12); WO 2008/142365 (2008-11) and WO 2009/056859 (2009-05) — the last two are post-priority and date-ineligible.

The pre-2005-11-01 PCT publications (WO 96/20641, 96/29005, 97/46156, 99/59460, 01/89262, 01/97868) are the only references on the entire list that are § 102(b) eligible. I do not have their titles or contents in the retrieved record, so I am not going to describe them — doing so would be fabrication. These, together with the long run of 1979–2004 U.S. patents on the same front page (beginning with US 4,141,367 — Ferreira, 1979-02-20, cross-confirmed as the first entry on the sibling front pages), are the group most worth pulling from PatentCenter for a real § 102(b) study.

3(d) Non-patent literature cited

• International Search Report / Written Opinion for PCT/US07/83156, dated 2008-05-15 (16 pp.).
• European Supplementary Partial Search Report for EP 07 84 4766.1, dated 2017-02-24 (7 pp.).
• Supplementary European Search Report for EP 07 844 766.1, dated 2017-05-31 (10 pp.).
• Japanese Office Action dated 2010-01-12 for JP App. No. 2006-507455 (5 pp.).

These are prosecution documents, not prior art. Note the earlier finding that the PCT/US2007/083156 search report itself raised lack-of-unity and defined "Group 2 Claims 45–48" as the high-voltage-protection printing method — consistent with the '974 divisional being carved out on that subject matter. The ISR is evidence of record, not art.

4. Assessment: what is actually "most relevant" for § 102

Bottom line: on the cited record, I find no reference that appears to be a clean § 102 anticipation of either independent aspect of the '974. The citation profile is consistent with the art having been cited for § 103 or as background, which is also consistent with the claims having issued.

• For the apparatus aspect (disposable module with multiple body connections + connector; internal/external power source; comm/computation module with mating connector, microprocessor performing real-time analysis, and radio reporting raw signal or result; unit non-permanently affixed to skin):

  • Best § 102(a) candidates: Stivoric US 2005/0245839 (body-worn sensor package) and Juola US 2006/0074284 (capacitive electrode). Neither shows the disposable/reusable modular split plus on-board real-time analysis plus radio.
  • Best § 102(e) candidate: Fadem US 2007/0270678 A1, Wireless electrode for biopotential measurement (2007-11) — a body-worn wireless biopotential electrode. Its publication is post-priority, so it is usable only under § 102(e), which requires its U.S. filing date to precede 2006-11-01 and requires it to be "by another." I could not retrieve its filing date, so I cannot confirm this. This is the single reference I would pull first.

• For the method aspect (printed first material of a first resistivity, printed second material of a second resistivity overlaid on the first, on a substrate supporting patient connections):

  • Best cited analog is Tsukada US 2006/0205171 (printed chip-resistor manufacture) — § 102(a) eligible, but missing the patient-connection substrate limitation. § 103 material, not an anticipatory reference.
  • Nothing else on the cited list is directed to overlaying printed resistive/conductive layers on a body-worn electrode substrate.

• References that cannot be § 102 art at all: all 2007–2010 publications with filing dates after 2006-11-01 (the McLaughlin trio, and — subject to filing-date verification — the Sims, Weiner, McAdams, Martin and Welch-family documents).

5. Explicit uncertainty flags

1. I did not retrieve the printed (56) list from the '974 front page image or from PatentCenter/PAIR. The list above is from the FreePatentsOnline text record plus family cross-checks. Some items on the FPO list may be family-aggregated rather than literally on the '974 front page.
2. The '974's verbatim claim set remains unavailable in the sources I could reach. All claim mapping above is keyed to the two claim aspects identified from the abstract and summary of invention. Do not treat it as claim-chart-accurate.
3. Filing dates — which drive § 102(e) — are not in the retrieved record for most references. The § 102(e) statements above are conditional, not conclusions.
4. The inventor-count discrepancy (3 vs. 5) must be resolved before any § 102(e) "by another" analysis involving Welch Allyn family documents can be treated as reliable.
5. The legacy OCR of the 1979–2004 entries is unreliable (e.g., inventor names appear as "Schraga," "Herbini," "Sarlian," etc.). I have deliberately listed those by number and year only.
6. I performed no PACER/CM-ECF or USPTO image query, and no live search for third-party art outside the cited record. Prior art not cited on the '974's face — which is often where the best invalidity art lives — is outside the scope of what I was asked to (and could) retrieve here.

Primary sources used: https://FreePatentsOnline.com/8750974.html · https://patents.google.com/patent/US8750974/en · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20140100467 · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1a/31/1d/10f60319911cff/US9877663.pdf · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00378/.../Exhibit_1003_US_Patent_No_8,965,492.pdf · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00377/.../Exhibit_1005__US_Patent_No_9,155,484.pdf · https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16022516

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

I found the family's claim language and several candidate references. Let me now pull the '974 claim text and prior art on screened resistors and defibrillation protection.

Strong references found. Let me check what art the PTAB petitions used and nail down a few more apparatus-claim references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 8,750,974 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared 2026-09-26. Builds on the previously generated Patent Summary and Litigation Summary; does not repeat their bibliographic or docket content.

0. Two threshold caveats before the merits

A. Claim-text contradiction I must flag. The previously generated Patent Summary reconstructed the '974's independent claims from the abstract and summary-of-invention, and stated the device claim requires a radio circuit "to communicate a raw physiological signal or a result of the physiological analysis at a predetermined time or on the occurrence of a predetermined event." My searches surfaced two different verbatim texts in the same family:

• The pre-grant publication 2008/0139953 (Ser. No. 11/591,619 → US 8,214,007) lists claim 1 as "communicate an unprocessed physiological signal or a result of the physiological analysis at a predetermined time or on the occurrence of a predetermined event" — i.e., close to, but not identical with, the Summary's paraphrase. Source: https://companyprofiles.justatic.com/patent/20080139953
• The iRhythm petitioner's expert (Jason Heikenfeld) quotes claim 1 of the granted '007 with material additional limitations — "a communication-computation module being removable and reusable" and elements (l)–(n) requiring "at least one series current-limiting resistor… screened on a flexible substrate… in the form of resistive traces." Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00378/iRhythm_Inc/docs/12-24-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1009-Exhibit_1009_Expert_Declaration_of_Jason_Heikenfeld_.pdf

These are not reconcilable as the same claim. The most likely explanation is that the Justia listing is the as-filed/published claim set and the Heikenfeld quote is the granted-and-possibly-corrected claim set. I could not retrieve verbatim claim text for the '974 itself. Accordingly, this analysis reasons about the two independent-claim families the record supports — (i) a device claim in the form of the summary-of-invention passage, and (ii) the method claim that is the '974's abstract (corresponding to claims 45–48 of the '007 lineage) — and flags where the answer would change if the granted '974 claim is narrower (e.g., includes a "removable and reusable" limitation or the screened-resistor limitations).

B. Governing law. Earliest effective filing date is Nov. 1, 2006, so the pre-AIA §§ 102/103 regime applies (AIA § 3(n)(1)). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), governs motivation — a POSITA may combine known elements "according to known methods" where the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Note also pre-AIA § 103(c): the other family members ('699, '007, '492, '484, '336, '663, '422, '839) share inventors and are commonly owned, so they are not available as prior art against the '974 — a point that matters because the examiner's citations on the family's face are largely these sibling documents plus peripheral art. Genuine prior art must come from outside the family.

1. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

A POSITA here is a biomedical or electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in EE/BME and 2–4 years of experience in physiological monitoring and ECG front-end design, or equivalent; conversant with (a) ambulatory/holter ECG and telemetry, (b) flexible printed circuits and thick-film/screen-printed resistor fabrication, (c) the applicable standards (AAMI EC-13, EC-11, ANSI/AAMI DF80:2003 § 57.10), and (d) short-range wireless protocols. This matters because several "inventions" in the dependent claims are recited at the level of ordinary design choice for such a person.

2. The prior-art set (all pre-2006 unless noted)

3. Independent Claim 1 (device) — obviousness

3.1 Element mapping. Assuming the granted claim 1 is substantially the summary-of-invention passage:

3.2 Motivation. KSR is satisfied several times over. PA-1 already places a microprocessor, power source, electrodes and a radio in a disposable adhesive body-worn patch in the same field for the same purpose (cardiac monitoring), so the claimed combination is at most the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions. The two asserted differences are design choices: (i) making the computation/radio portion a removable, reusable module rather than potted into the disposable patch is the classic cost/waste trade-off (the disposable/reusable split is exactly what PA-9's Micropaq and conventional disposable ECG electrodes already embody); and (ii) choosing when to transmit — periodic vs. event-triggered — is an ordinary telemetry trade-off between power and latency, and PA-1 itself states the components "should be chosen for minimum power consumption."

3.3 Result. Claim 1 would have been obvious over PA-1 alone, and a fortiori over PA-1 in view of PA-5 and the PA-9 admissions. If the granted claim contains the Heikenfeld-quoted "removable and reusable" limitation, the conclusion holds but the motivation is supplied by PA-9/PA-1 rather than PA-1 alone.

4. Independent Method Claim (the "print pattern and thickness… overlay" claim) — obviousness

This is the strongest § 103 case, because the method claim recites only conventional screen-printing practice.

4.1 Element mapping.

4.2 Motivation. The motivation is stated in the '974 itself (and is therefore admitted): a medical-grade monitor must "survive multiple defibrillation cycles of at least 360 joules," and the conventional discrete power resistor "physical volume… is too large for use in a compact monitor application." PA-2 addresses exactly that problem and, notably, reaches for the same class of solution the '974 adopts — replacing discrete lumped resistors with resistance distributed in a carbon-loaded polymer rather than a bulky component. Given a known problem (defibrillation survival in a miniaturized, flexible, adhesive monitor), a known solution class (series carbon resistance), and a known, ubiquitous fabrication technique (screen-printing successive layers of differing resistivity onto a flexible substrate — PA-3, PA-4), the claimed method is the predictable combination of familiar elements yielding nothing more than their expected results. There is no teaching away; on the contrary, PA-4 teaches the very concern (arcing at the resistive element under fault current) that the '974's fillet/overlay/annulus dependent claims address, and PA-4 solves it by containment/overglaze — a direct suggestion toward the overlapped-layer and insulating-overlay variants.

4.3 Result. The method claim would have been obvious over PA-3 in view of PA-2, or over PA-4 in view of PA-2; adding PA-1 (or PA-7) supplies the "substrate supporting electrical connections to a patient's body" prong and makes the combination airtight. If the granted '974 method claim is limited to a body-worn monitor (as the abstract says), PA-1 fills that gap cleanly.

5. Dependent claims — grouped conclusions

• Series current-limiting resistor screened on the flexible substrate (family claims 6/7; '974 claim 1(l)–(n) if present). Obvious over PA-2 (series carbon resistors for defibrillation) + PA-3/PA-4 (screen-printed resistors). PA-8 independently teaches series resistance between low-voltage ECG electronics and the patient connection expressly to survive defibrillation.
• Filleted edge at the resistor/electrode interface (claim 8); overlapped layers, carbon over conductive surface, same shape (claims 9–10). Routine geometry to reduce field stress and improve termination adhesion; suggested by PA-4's express arcing concern and by standard thick-film termination practice (PA-3's carbon-over-conductor printing). At most a KSR "obvious to try" — the '974's own specification frames the fillet and the overlay as two alternative fixes to an identified arcing problem.
• Insulating material over the resistor to prevent arcing (claim 11). PA-4 (overglaze; "air is not desired… arcing is to be prevented") and PA-3 (solder resist over printed resistors).
• Annular electrode / conductive ink (claims 12–13). Disclosed/obvious in view of the admitted commercial annular snap electrodes (ConMed Cleartrace, 3M) named in the '974; the '974 also states the perimeter/area trade-off as known.
• Survive ≥360 J; gas-discharge tube/neon bulbs/diodes distributed between modules (claims 30–32, 43–44). Dictated by AAMI EC-13 / ANSI/AAMI DF80, with PA-2 supplying the series-resistor half and the neon-bulb/diode clamp being the standard companion protection network. Claim 32's "distributed between the disposable module and the communication-computation module" is an evident design choice once the disposable/reusable split exists.
• Reference electrode / virtual electrode / driven lead / switch (claims 19–24). Conventional common-mode-rejection techniques (right-leg drive, driven-lead, capacitive reference) — the '974 describes them as known in the art and recites the sources.
• Pacer detect, auto-enable/disable, microprocessor interrupt, self-test (claims 25–29, 37). Routine ECG signal-processing features; PA-1's "minimum power consumption" guidance motivates disabling unused circuits.
• Selectable high-pass corner frequency, software HPF, inverse-filter restoration (claims 33–36). Ordinary filter design; the '974 recites the 0.05 Hz / 0.5 Hz standard trade-off from EC-13.
• Sleep mode between T-wave and P-wave (claims 40–41); buffered/batched ADC (related). Obvious power-management optimization: the '974 itself explains the "dead time between heart beats"; PA-1 teaches low-power component selection.
• Lead-fail detection (claim 38); ESIS filtering (claims 39, 42). ESIS suppression is mandated by AAMI EC-13; lead-off detection is standard in any ECG monitor and expressly analogized in the '974 to existing "lead failed" detection.
• Renewable/Seebeck power, rechargeable or single-use battery in the disposable module (claims 15–18). PA-1 teaches a rechargeable Li-ion battery; button cells and Seebeck/thermoelectric and mechanical (self-winding watch) energy sources were well known.

6. What the patent owner can argue (and the weaknesses)

1. Long-felt need / teaching away. Welch Allyn will argue that the art taught away from printed resistors by using discrete or carbon-loaded-polymer leads, and that the '974 solved a "notoriously intractable" problem (arcing at the carbon/conductor interface; resistance drift across defibrillation cycles). This is the strongest counter — but it cuts the other way under KSR: PA-2 recognized the identical "bulky lumped resistor" problem 25 years earlier, which undercuts novelty of the problem and supports obviousness of trying the same distributed-resistance approach.
2. Secondary considerations. Commercial success (Zio/welch allyn products) and industry praise would be the owner's objective evidence, but success must be nexused to the claimed feature rather than to the general convenience of adhesive ECG patches. Note the litigation posture: Welch Allyn added the '974 to Welch Allyn v. iRhythm, No. 1:24-cv-00224-MN (D. Del.), via the Second Amended Complaint (Feb. 2025), asserting at least claim 1 against the Zio Monitor family, while iRhythm's IPRs (IPR2025-00363/-00374/-00376/-00377/-00378) targeted the originally asserted four patents and were discretionarily denied institution on June 6, 2025. No IPR has been identified against the '974 itself, so the invalidity theories above are untested before the PTAB.
3. Claim-scope uncertainty is the owner's shield. Because I could not verify the granted claim text, the owner could narrow around PA-1 — e.g., if the granted '974 claim 1 requires "removable and reusable" computation module plus the screened series resistor plus a specific "real-time physiological analysis determin[ing] an occurrence of a predetermined physiological event" (the Heikenfeld-quoted form). Even then, the combination of PA-1 + PA-2 + PA-3 (or PA-8) supplies each element, and the motivation is the same stated problem.

7. Bottom line

Confidence: high on the method claim and the resistor/arcing dependents (multiple, non-family, pre-2006 references map element-for-element). Moderate on the device claim, because the strongest reference (PA-1) is a disposable patch rather than the claimed disposable+reusable split — the gap is bridgeable but requires an express motivation argument keyed to Hoyt/'183's own cost/power discussions. Low confidence in any claim-chart-grade mapping, because the verbatim claim set of US 8,750,974 was not retrievable from the sources searched (Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline supply the abstract and description but not the claims), and the record affirmatively shows at least three mutually inconsistent versions of the family's claim 1. Do not rely on the element-by-element tables above as literal claim charts; verify the granted '974 claims on USPTO PatentCenter before using them in any filing.