ITC Issues Initial Determination in Favor of Fitbit
The International Trade Commission has issued an initial determination in favor of Fitbit in an ITC case brought by Jawbone.
An administrative law judge who presided over the merits hearing concluded that Fitbit did not misappropriate any Jawbone trade secrets. This determination followed earlier decisions that eliminated from this investigation all six of the Jawbone patents asserted against Fitbit.
“We are pleased with the ITC’s initial determination rejecting Jawbone’s trade secret claims,” said James Park, CEO and co-founder of Fitbit. “We greatly appreciate the administrative law judge’s time and diligent work on this case. From the outset of this litigation, we have maintained that Jawbone’s allegations were utterly without merit and nothing more than a desperate attempt by Jawbone to disrupt Fitbit’s momentum to compensate for their own lack of success in the market. Our customers can be assured that we remain fully committed to creating innovative products that consumers love, and that we are excited about the pipeline of new products coming out this year.”
Fitbit designs products that track everyday health and fitness. Fitbit products are carried in 54,000 retail stores and in 64 countries around the globe. Fitbit Group Health uses the power of the Fitbit activity trackers, software, and services to deliver innovative solutions for corporate wellness, weight management, insurance and clinical research.
Fitbit is considered to be the biggest maker of wrist-based and clippable fitness devices, which track users’ steps, calories burned, and heart rates. The company sold 5.7 million devices in the second quarter, beating revenue estimates.
Jawbone also makes activity trackers but has been losing market share, according to Reuters. It is no longer among the top five wearables vendors, according to market research firm International Data Corp. Jawbone’s products appear under the UP brand.
Jawbone first sued Fitbit last year over trade secret violations in California state court, where a case is still pending. The companies, both headquartered in San Francisco, are also litigating over patents in federal court.