Stretchy wearable device turns body heat into power
Researchers have developed a stretchable, wearable device that lights up an LED using only the warmth of your skin.
Researchers have developed a stretchable, wearable device that lights up an LED using only the warmth of your skin.
Researchers have developed a stretchable, wearable device that lights up an LED using only the warmth of your skin.
A wearable health sensor could someday provide a simple and non-invasive way to track health conditions and diagnose common diseases.
A wearable health sensor could someday provide a simple and non-invasive way to track health conditions and diagnose common diseases.
by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit’s 2023 decision in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. marked an important change in inter partes review procedure, ensuring petitioners have an opportunity to respond patentee’s newly proposed arguments, with the hope of discouraging patent owners from holding-back (“sandbagging”) at the institution stage. Case-in-point is the Federal Circuit’s recent Apple v. Omni MedSci decision authored by Judge Alan D. Albright sitting by designation.
= = =
In his first appellate opinion, Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas (sitting by designation at the Federal Circuit) authored the appellate court’s recent unanimous decision in Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). The decision sides with petitioner Apple who had challenged Omni MedSci’s US10517484 via inter partes review. The Board invalidated some claims of the ‘484 patent, but concluded some claims were “not proven unpatentable.” On appeal, Judge Albright reversed-in-part, finding that the Board abused its discretion by refusing to consider Apple’s claim construction arguments even though made for the first time in its reply brief at the merits stage.
The patent here is directed to a wearable device that measures physiological parameters and works in conjunction with a smartphone or tablet.
by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit’s 2023 decision in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. marked an important change in inter partes review procedure, ensuring petitioners have an opportunity to respond patentee’s newly proposed arguments, with the hope of discouraging patent owners from holding-back (“sandbagging”) at the institution stage. Case-in-point is the Federal Circuit’s recent Apple v. Omni MedSci decision authored by Judge Alan D. Albright sitting by designation.
= = =
In his first appellate opinion, Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas (sitting by designation at the Federal Circuit) authored the appellate court’s recent unanimous decision in Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). The decision sides with petitioner Apple who had challenged Omni MedSci’s US10517484 via inter partes review. The Board invalidated some claims of the ‘484 patent, but concluded some claims were “not proven unpatentable.” On appeal, Judge Albright reversed-in-part, finding that the Board abused its discretion by refusing to consider Apple’s claim construction arguments even though made for the first time in its reply brief at the merits stage.
The patent here is directed to a wearable device that measures physiological parameters and works in conjunction with a smartphone or tablet.
“This work is essentially making science fiction reality—allowing people to burn less energy while conducting a variety of tasks.”
“This work is essentially making science fiction reality—allowing people to burn less energy while conducting a variety of tasks.”
A new material that moves like skin could lead to wearable devices that work continuously and consistently without wires or batteries.
The addition of wireless, battery-free charging to a wearable sensor is a step toward the future of self-health monitoring.