Legal Opinion
Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 3, 2018No. Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05938-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05939-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-05941-YGR; Case No. 17-cv-06881-YGRPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
B. The '752 Patent
Independent Claim 1 of the '752 Patent is directed to method of transferring data from an internet incapable data capture device to an internet server via an intermediary internet capable mobile device by pushing event notifications within an already paired and encrypted Bluetooth connection . (See '752 patent at 11:48-59.) Unlike the '794 Patent, the '752 Patent recites the use of a "secured" Bluetooth connection with a data encryption step.5 (Id. at 11:51-59, 12:13-16).
*1146C. The '847 Patent
Independent asserted Claim 1 of the '847 Patent is directed to a method and system of…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Conservation Force v. SalazarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Uniloc U.S. Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019