MO Inc and LP.co Patent case

In 2008, Mo Inc lunched an Electronic Devices called myo armband that allowed the user to control any physical or software devices using his arm muscle movement. The devices had two component first was the support software attached with a sensor using cables and the second was the armband with 8 advanced EMG sensors and 9-axis IMU. The support software is installed in that digital devices the user wants to control and attached it with a sensor(detect arm muscle motion) using cable. The armband sense gesture and motion controls to seamlessly interpret what your hands and fingers are doing and transmits that information over to sensor to communicate with your favorite digital devices.

In 2010, MO Inc succeed in signing a deal of 56.2 million $ with Michael orlando the CEO of Techcom that allowed them to mass produced their product and expand their business world wide. With in 3 month USPTO issued patent #1 019 769 recognizing MO Inc innovation useful and non obvious.

The product successfully targeted many government and private company that took interest in the product. Armband replaced analog controller from the game, disable people started using myo armband for communication as it was easy to understand and use, military were using the armband to control UMV drones and ground vehicle, and people were using in their daily life like controlling T.V or computer or music player etc.

After 1 and half year LP.co lunched its new product Leap motion that supports hands and finger motion as inputs, analogous to a mouse. The performance of Leap motion was the same of  myo armband but it had only component the device it self and cheaper than myo armband. The MO Inc market drop down because of the new product and lost dozen of market share.

MO Inc suspected that LP.co was infringing on their product and started looking in to the matter. MO Inc suspected that LP.co product was entirely running on a modified copy version of their myo armband support software.MO Ic filed a petition against LP.co for using their software without their permission. US patent country court accepted the petition and specialist programmer were called to check the owner ship of support software program.