At the heart of the file is the patent 7,020,514. The ‘514 patent, filed and attributed to Dr Joseph Wiesel, is called “Method and apparatus for detecting atrial fibrillation” and was awarded on March 28, 2006.
The original patent allows patients to use photoplethysmography, essentially what Apple uses in Apple with the green light and associated sensors, in a non-clinical setting. The suit calls the patent “pioneering steps in the detection of atrial fibrillation”.
Dr. Wiesel informed Apple of its patent on September 20, 2017, following the deployment of the Apple Series 3. The prosecution alleges that Apple refused to negotiate in good faith “even after Dr. Wiesel supplied to Apple detailed claims tables highlighting elements of Dr. Wiesel’s patent claims and their mapping to elements of Apple products. “
The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s marketing of irregular heartbeat notifications makes the patent an “essential part of Apple” used to stimulate consumer demand. In addition, the use of technology by Apple in the study on the heart of Apple with Stanford is presented as an example of the critical importance of technology for Apple and Apple.
The patent does not deal at all, but includes discussions of the devices attached to the “appendages” specified as a finger in the patent, or a “cuff device” in the case of an inflatable blood pressure sensor. The ‘514 patent includes a discussion that there must be a microprocessor of some kind to track time and interpret information recorded by the photoplethysmograph sensors.
As far as the patent is concerned, there seems to be an important prior art with regard to the invention, many of which have been cited by the applicant. In addition, although Dr. Wiesel has a long and distinguished career and education, it does not appear that he was part of teams that developed photoplethysmograph hardware or software.
Dr. Wiesel is asking for future royalties, legal fees and recovery from past damages. Since the prosecution alleges that the offense is “deliberate, intentional and deliberate”, triple damages are sought.
Wiesel Versus Apple by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd