Whoop Inc v. Finerpoint Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Whoop, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: FINERPOINT, INC. d/b/a BEVEL (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00289, D. Del., 03/17/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware as the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Bevel App, a mobile fitness application, infringes four patents related to the analysis of physiological data to provide automated exercise and sleep recommendations, and further alleges copyright and trade dress infringement based on the app's user interface.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the wearable health and fitness sector, where mobile applications analyze biometric data from sensors to provide users with personalized insights into their physical strain, recovery, and sleep.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant in October 2024, putting Defendant on notice of its alleged patent, copyright, and trade dress infringement prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,602,279 - "Automated Exercise Recommendations"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,602,279, "Automated Exercise Recommendations," issued March 14, 2023 Compl. ¶97

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes an increasing demand for health and fitness monitors but notes the drawbacks of conventional devices, such as chest straps, which can be obtrusive and prevent the continuous, around-the-clock monitoring needed for reliable fitness analysis '279 Patent, col. 1:22-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for interpreting data from a continuous physiological monitor to provide automated recommendations '279 Patent, abstract It processes data from a wearable device to generate custom metrics such as an "Intensity Score" (measuring cardiovascular exertion) and a "Recovery Score" (measuring recovery after exertion), which are then used to help a user manage their health and exercise regimen '279 Patent, col. 2:1-6 The overall process involves monitoring data, detecting exercise and recovery states, generating assessments, analyzing them, and generating a recommendation '279 Patent, FIG. 26
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to translate raw, continuously-monitored physiological data into actionable, personalized coaching to improve fitness and recovery, eliminating the need for invasive laboratory testing Compl. ¶98

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 17 (a computer program product) Compl. ¶201
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Measuring a resting heart rate and calculating heart rate variability from continuous heart rate data.
  • Generating an "intensity score" based on heart rate reserve data collected during automatically detected exercise.
  • Calculating a "sleep score" and generating a "recovery score" based on a weighted combination of heart rate variability and the sleep score.
  • Analyzing the intensity and recovery assessments to "automatically generate a recommendation on a change to an exercise routine."
  • Displaying the recommendation to the user.

U.S. Patent No. 11,627,946 - "Cycle-based Sleep Coaching"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,627,946, "Cycle-based Sleep Coaching," issued April 18, 2023 Compl. ¶99

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that physiological and hormonal cycles, such as the menstrual cycle, can distinctly affect a person's health, fitness, recovery, and sleep, creating a need for coaching recommendations that are adjusted for these cycles '946 Patent, col. 1:20-33
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for "cycle-based sleep coaching" '946 Patent, title It involves acquiring physiological data (such as heart rate) from a wearable monitor, identifying the user's hormonal cycle and current phase, and then adjusting sleep recommendations based on that specific phase '946 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶100 The process involves generating an initial sleep recommendation and then determining a second, adjusted recommendation based on the user's cycle phase '946 Patent, FIG. 30
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for fitness and wellness coaching to be personalized not just to an individual's general physiology, but also to the predictable changes that occur during their hormonal cycle Compl. ¶100

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (a method) Compl. ¶220
• The essential elements of independent claim 4 include:
  • Acquiring heart rate data from a wearable device.
  • Identifying a hormonal cycle and a phase within that cycle.
  • Determining a current sleep need based on a prior sleep history.
  • Generating a "first recommended time in bed" based on the sleep need.
  • Determining a "second recommended time in bed" by "adjusting the first recommended time in bed according to the phase" of the hormonal cycle.

U.S. Patent No. 12,220,112 - "Cycle-based Workout Coaching"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,220,112, "Cycle-based Workout Coaching," issued February 11, 2025 Compl. ¶101
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for providing workout coaching tailored to a user's hormonal cycle Compl. ¶102 It involves generating a recommended strain (exercise intensity) for a training activity based on the user's current recovery level, and then adjusting that recommendation according to the user's specific phase within their hormonal cycle '112 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Claim 4 Compl. ¶239
• Accused Features: The Bevel App is accused of infringing by making dynamic recommendations regarding strain level that are adjusted according to the user's hormonal cycle phase Compl. ¶102 Compl. ¶175

U.S. Patent No. 12,318,226 - "Determining Sleep Need from Physiological Measurements"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,318,226, "Determining Sleep Need from Physiological Measurements," issued June 3, 2025 Compl. ¶103
• Technology Synopsis: The patent covers methods for determining a user's sleep need by interpreting data from a physiological monitor Compl. ¶104 The process involves generating a custom "intensity score" (strain) and then analyzing that score along with other data to determine a sleep need for the user '226 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Claim 4 Compl. ¶255
• Accused Features: The Bevel App is accused of infringing by analyzing physiological data and a generated strain score to determine a user's sleep need Compl. ¶104 Compl. ¶176

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Bevel App, a fitness tracking mobile application Compl. ¶107

Functionality and Market Context

• The Bevel App is designed to present personalized health insights by synthesizing data collected by third-party wearable fitness trackers, such as the Apple Watch Compl. ¶107 The complaint alleges that the Bevel App's user interface is a "nearly screen-for-screen copy" of the Plaintiff's WHOOP App Compl. ¶108
• Alleged features include the calculation and display of "Strain," "Recovery," and "Sleep Performance" scores, as well as "Health Monitor" and "Stress Monitor" pages, which are presented using a visual layout and terminology that the complaint claims were copied from the WHOOP App Compl. ¶¶112-125 An early marketing image for the accused product allegedly advertised it as "Whoop, But for Apple Watch," which is presented as evidence of intentional copying Compl. ¶109

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference infringement chart exhibits that were not filed with the public complaint Compl. ¶¶173-176 The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for the '279 Patent based on the narrative and visual evidence provided in the complaint body.

U.S. Patent No. 11,602,279 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the infringement allegations against the '946 Patent, as it relies on an external exhibit not provided with the filing Compl. ¶174

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the Bevel App itself performs the active steps of the asserted method claims (e.g., "measuring," "calculating," "generating") or if it primarily displays metrics that are calculated by the underlying third-party hardware (e.g., the Apple Watch). The distinction between performing a claimed step versus displaying the result of a step performed by another device may be central to the infringement analysis.
• Technical Questions: For the '279 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused "Strain" and "Recovery" scores are generated using the specific methodologies required by the claims, such as a "weighted sum of heart rate reserve data" for the intensity score and a "weighted combination of the heart rate variability, and the sleep score" for the recovery score. For the cycle-based patents ('946 and '112), a foundational question is whether the complaint provides evidence that the Bevel App actually performs the claimed step of "identifying a hormonal cycle," a feature not explicitly detailed in the complaint's narrative descriptions of the accused app.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "generating an intensity score ... using a weighted sum of heart rate reserve data" '279 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific calculation for what Plaintiff markets as its "Strain Score." The infringement analysis for this element will likely depend on whether Defendant's "Strain" calculation falls within the scope of this language. Practitioners may focus on whether "weighted sum" requires the specific physiological, multi-tiered weighting scheme described in the patent's embodiments.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the goal is to "capture an accurate indication of the cardiovascular intensity experienced by the user" '279 Patent, col. 27:8-12, which could support construing the term to cover various algorithms that achieve this functional result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed example of a piecewise-linear weighting scheme with distinct weights for HRR values below the anaerobic threshold, between the anaerobic and creatine triphosphate thresholds, and above that threshold '279 Patent, col. 28:16-34 A party could argue that "weighted sum" should be construed to be limited to such a physiologically-based, multi-level weighting approach.

• The Term: "generating a recovery score ... based on a weighted combination of the heart rate variability, and the sleep score" '279 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the "Recovery Score" element. The dispute may turn on what inputs are required for the "weighted combination."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly lists only heart rate variability and sleep score as inputs for the "weighted combination." The plain language suggests only these two inputs are required.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment in the specification describes the recovery score as a "weighted combination of the user's heart rate variability (HRV), resting heart rate, sleep quality indicated by a sleep score, and recent strain" '279 Patent, col. 29:57-61 A party might argue that this description implies that "a weighted combination" as used by the inventors requires additional inputs beyond just HRV and sleep score, such as resting heart rate and strain.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its users to infringe the asserted patents through its website marketing, product descriptions, and video tutorials Compl. ¶207 Compl. ¶225
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Plaintiff's public patent marking on its website since September 2023 Compl. ¶203 and, more directly, on a cease and desist letter sent to Defendant on October 29, 2024, which explicitly identified the '279 Patent Compl. ¶204 The complaint alleges that Defendant "doubled down" and released subsequent infringing versions of its app after receiving the letter Compl. ¶130

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Technical Implementation vs. Cosmetic Similarity: A central issue will be whether the Bevel App performs the specific, multi-step calculations required by the patent claims (e.g., generating scores using a "weighted sum" or "weighted combination") or if it merely replicates the look, feel, and naming conventions of the WHOOP App's output without practicing the underlying patented methods. The extensive visual evidence of copying in the user interface Compl. ¶¶112-125 may be more relevant to the trade dress and copyright claims than to the patent infringement analysis, which will depend on the accused app's internal functionality.
• Existence of Claimed Functionality: For the cycle-based patents ('946 and '112), a key evidentiary question will be whether the Bevel App performs the foundational step of "identifying a hormonal cycle." The complaint's narrative focuses on UI similarities but does not explicitly allege that the Bevel App contains this specific, advanced analytical feature, raising a potential question of a fundamental mismatch between the accused product and the asserted claims.
• Divided Infringement: Since the Bevel App operates using data from third-party hardware, a key legal question may be one of divided infringement: does Bevel's system, by itself, perform every step of the asserted method claims, or does its alleged infringement depend on combining its actions with those of the user or the underlying hardware (e.g., an Apple Watch)? This could require Plaintiff to prove its case under theories of indirect infringement rather than direct infringement.