Prevayl Innovations Limited vs Whoop Inc.

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, presided over a significant case involving Prevayl Innovations Limited and Whoop Inc. The judgment, delivered by His Honour Judge Hacon, addressed allegations of patent infringement and counterclaims of invalidity concerning wearable technology integrated into garments.

The Case

Prevayl Innovations Limited, the claimant, owns UK Patent GB 2 589 947, which pertains to a 'smart bra' designed to measure biosignals through integrated technology. Prevayl accused Whoop Inc., the defendant, of infringing this patent. Whoop countered by challenging the patent's validity, citing lack of novelty and inventive step over prior art.

The Skilled Team and Experts

Both parties agreed on the composition of the skilled team required to assess the patent: an individual experienced in garment design and another with expertise in biosensor technology. Prevayl presented two expert witnesses, Dr Jacob Skinner and Piers Thomas, while Whoop's expert was Professor Monica Schraefel. All experts were deemed excellent witnesses by the court.

The Patent

The patent in question, with a priority date of 9 September 2019, describes a bra that incorporates sensors to measure biosignals, specifically positioning the measuring apparatus in the side region of the bra to avoid discomfort and unsightliness. Claims 1 and 2 of the patent specify the placement and configuration of the sensors and associated apparatus.

Prior Art and Novelty

Whoop cited two prior art references: US Patent Application 2018/0317845 and PCT Application WO 2018/206853. The court found that while the prior art disclosed similar technologies, they did not anticipate the specific claims of Prevayl's patent, particularly the unique placement of the sensor assembly.

Inventive Step

The court evaluated the inventive step by considering whether the patent's claims were obvious in light of the prior art. The judgment concluded that the patent lacked an inventive step, as the skilled team would have found the claimed invention obvious over the cited prior art.

Infringement

Regarding infringement, the court examined Whoop's products, including a sports bra and a sensor module. It was determined that the combination of these products constituted an infringement of the patent claims, despite the patent being deemed invalid.

Conclusion

The High Court ruled that Prevayl's patent was invalid due to lack of inventive step. However, had it been valid, Whoop's products would have infringed the patent. This case highlights the complexities of patent law, particularly in the rapidly evolving field of wearable technology.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.