Mike Peterson
An Ohio-based company is suing Apple for selling smart water bottles that connect to smartwatches like an Apple Watch, allegedly infringing on two patents covering similar technology.
The plaintiff in the case is non-practicing entity Xennial IP LLC, which owns U.S. Patent No. 7,792,409 and U.S. Patent No 10,664,571. Both properties cover a "communicative sports water bottle" that can connect to a smart device and track health metrics like water intake.
Apple does not make a smart water bottle with connectivity features. However, on its online store, it does offer HidrateSpark devices that can connect to an Apple Watch, monitor liquid intake and set daily goals.
The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Wednesday, claims that Apple is directly infringing on the '409 patent by "making, using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, offering to sell, selling an/or importing" HidrateSpark water bottles.
According to the complaint, the HidrateSpark system infringes on Xennial's IP because they include a "bottle body having a base and an upwardly extending sidewall therein defining a fluid chamber," as well as smart systems like a sensor and Bluetooth connectivity.
The lawsuit, which demands a jury trial, seeks a permanent enjoinment on further infringement, an award of damages, and attorneys' fees, among other prayers for relief.
Mike Wuerthele
Malcolm Owen
Andrew O'Hara
Mike Wuerthele and Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
William Gallagher
31 Comments
Does anyone know a single person that owns a “smart” water bottle?
No point in suing someone who doesn’t have money.
Suing a reseller seems like a stretch.
They are also sold on Amazon, well.ca…
Sounds like a company that wants freedom of a a patent that should have never been issued. Apple will move to invalidate that vaguely written mess.
After just reading the initial few pages of the lawsuit, I think they need to find a new lawyer. Employs 'thousands of people..." Would that be 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? Pretty imprecise language for a legal document. As Mknelson pointed out, these are also sold by Amazon, Walmart, and Bed Bath and Beyond in my area. So claiming patent infringement on one retailer, while apparently being alright with the company manufacturing and selling the product through other retail channels likely means the only winner here is the lawyer.