Back to Blog
ITCOctober 27, 2026·337-TA-3937·SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FILED

Certain Wearable Activity and Health Monitoring Devices and Systems Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-3937 (Violation)

U.S. International Trade Commission

Holding

This supplemental complaint, filed by UnaliWear, Inc., supplements its September 18, 2026 complaint concerning the '193 Patent by adding assignment exhibits, priority application prosecution histories, corrected counterpart information, a narrowed set of asserted claims, and revised domestic industry language.

Why It Matters

The supplement cures documentary and pleading gaps (ownership proof, prosecution histories under Rule 210.12(c)(2), foreign counterparts) so the investigation can be instituted on wearable activity and health monitoring devices. It narrows the asserted claims to 1-28 and 35-43 of the '193 Patent and restates the domestic industry allegation under Section 337(a)(2) and (a)(3).

Full Summary

This supplemental complaint, filed by UnaliWear, Inc., supplements its September 18, 2026 complaint concerning the '193 Patent by adding assignment exhibits, priority application prosecution histories, corrected counterpart information, a narrowed set of asserted claims, and revised domestic industry language. The supplement cures documentary and pleading gaps (ownership proof, prosecution histories under Rule 210.12(c)(2), foreign counterparts) so the investigation can be instituted on wearable activity and health monitoring devices. It narrows the asserted claims to 1-28 and 35-43 of the '193 Patent and restates the domestic industry allegation under Section 337(a)(2) and (a)(3). Complainant is UnaliWear, Inc.; the certificate of service lists proposed respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Google LLC, and Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. Asserted patent is the '193 Patent, issued June 16, 2020, a continuation-in-part of Application No. 14/917,787 (U.S. Patent No. 10,051,410), claiming priority to Provisional No. 61/879,806. Asserted claims are narrowed from 1-43 to claims 1-28 and 35-43, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c) and Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i). New Exhibits 10-12 are certified assignments, and new Appendices A2-A4 are the prosecution histories of the priority applications. Paragraph 33 is replaced with a list of foreign and domestic counterparts and their prosecution status, including AU, EP, CN, JP, CA, MX, IL and PCT filings. Paragraph 55 is revised to allege a domestic industry through significant investment in plant and equipment and employment of labor and capital for DI Products practicing the Asserted Patent.

Key Points

  • Complainant is UnaliWear, Inc.; the certificate of service lists proposed respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Google LLC, and Garmin Ltd., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc.
  • Asserted patent is the '193 Patent, issued June 16, 2020, a continuation-in-part of Application No. 14/917,787 (U.S. Patent No. 10,051,410), claiming priority to Provisional No. 61/879,806.
  • Asserted claims are narrowed from 1-43 to claims 1-28 and 35-43, under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c) and Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i).
  • New Exhibits 10-12 are certified assignments, and new Appendices A2-A4 are the prosecution histories of the priority applications.
  • Paragraph 33 is replaced with a list of foreign and domestic counterparts and their prosecution status, including AU, EP, CN, JP, CA, MX, IL and PCT filings.
  • Paragraph 55 is revised to allege a domestic industry through significant investment in plant and equipment and employment of labor and capital for DI Products practicing the Asserted Patent.
amended complaintinfringementdomestic industrystanding / jurisdiction

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Commission's document; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity