Polar Electro's New 101 Cert Petition: When Courts Do the Challenger's Job

"Two Finnish sports-tech companies have been litigating U.S. Patent No. 6,537,227 in a Utah federal court since 2017. Polar Electro Oy - the heart rate monitor maker - owns the patent, which claims a process for estimating energy expenditure during exercise by combining a measured heart rate with a personalized physiological reference value tied to VO2max. Firstbeat Technologies Oy, a physiological analytics company acquired by Garmin in 2020, moved for summary judgment of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but, according to the record, supplied no prior art, no expert testimony, and no developed conventionality theory."

"The district court granted the motion anyway, assembling its own analysis from the prosecution history. The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion (Rule 36). Polar is now asking the Supreme Court to take up three big questions. Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy, No. 25-1268 (U.S. petition filed May 2026). Questions:"

"Whether a court may construct its own invalidity argument - independently identifying evidence and assembling rationales - when the challenger raised the defense but failed to support it, especially given § 282's presumption of validity and the clear-and-convincing standard. Whether a process that takes a real-world physiological input and uses it within an improved procedure to produce a more accurate technological result remains eligible under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Whether the judicially created exceptions for abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are impermissible judicial legislation the Court should overrule in favor of the statutory text."

Polar Electro Oy owns a patent covering estimating energy expenditure during exercise by combining measured heart rate with a personalized physiological reference value tied to VO2max. Firstbeat Technologies Oy, acquired by Garmin, sought summary judgment that the patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The challenger allegedly provided no prior art, no expert testimony, and no developed conventionality theory, yet the district court granted the motion using its own analysis from the prosecution history. The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion under Rule 36. Polar now petitions the Supreme Court to address whether courts may construct invalidity rationales on their own, whether the claimed process remains eligible under Diamond v. Diehr, and whether § 101 judicial exceptions should be overruled.

Read at Patently-O