When executives at Valencell, a North Carolina-based tech company, agreed to meet Apple researchers in 2013 to discuss the heart-rate sensor¹ technology they had developed for mobile fitness trackers, they probably envisioned a potentially lucrative² partnership³ with one of the wealthiest companies in the world.

Valencell是一家总部设在美国北卡罗来纳州的科技公司。2013年，该公司的管理层曾同意与苹果(Apple)公司的研究人员进行会面，讨论Valencell早前为移动健康跟踪设备所研发的心率感应技术。当时Valencell的管理层或许期待能与全球最富有的公司之一建立起有望带来丰厚利润的合作关系。

Apple was, at the time, believed to be creating a watch that would incorporate the technology used in its iPhones and iPads. Any deal incorporating Valencell’s fitness technology could be particularly profitable for the seven-year-old company so Valencell was all too eager to help. But after a series of meetings at which Valencell demonstrated its technology to Apple, no contract was ever offered and the tech giant, Valencell alleges⁵, disappeared.

当时外界认为苹果正在研发一种手表，这款手表将融入该公司在iPhone和iPad上所使用的那种技术。如果与苹果达成协议、让其在产品中融入Valencell的健康技术，可能为这家当时已成立七年的公司带来丰厚利润，因此Valencell当时非常积极地向苹果提供帮助。但在一系列会面之后——Valencell在会面的过程中向苹果展示了自己的技术——作为科技巨头的苹果公司并未提出签订合同，并且音信全无。

Yet when the Apple Watch was unveiled, Valencell claims the product contained the exact functions that it had been showing to Apple — and Valencell has filed a lawsuit⁶ to that effect. The lawsuit, filed in January at federal court in North Carolina, also alleges that Apple employees who were working on developing the watch used fake names to download publicly available white papers from their website detailing how the sensors⁷ worked. Apple had not yet responded to the claims in court at time of writing and declined to comment to the Financial Times.

但当苹果手表(Apple Watch)面世时，Valencell称，该产品包含了与自己曾向苹果展示过的完全一样的功能——Valencell甚至还就此事提起了诉讼。这项诉讼于今年1月在北卡罗来纳州的联邦法院提出，其中还声称苹果公司负责苹果手表研发工作的雇员使用假名，从Valencell的网站下载了公开发布的白皮书，白皮书中对感应器的工作原理做了详细介绍。截至记者撰稿时（原文发表于3月16日——译者注），苹果仍未在法庭上就Valencell的指控做出回应，也拒绝就此事向英国《金融时报》置评。

“Apple is knowingly using Valencell’s patented technology in an effort to achieve a licensing⁸ rate that is below a reasonable royalty,” Valencell’s lawyers allege⁴ in the lawsuit. Apple had decided⁹ “that the benefits of infringing¹⁰ upon Valencell’s patented technology outweigh¹¹ the risk of being caught and ultimately forced to pay damages”.

Valencell公司的律师在起诉书中声称：“苹果公司正在有意使用Valencell的专利技术，希望借此实现低于合理水平的许可费。”苹果公司早已认定，“侵犯Valencell技术专利权所带来的收益，超过了被控侵权并最终被迫赔偿损失的风险。”

While the case may seem a straightforward¹² intellectual property dispute, it is also one of a handful of lawsuits¹³ around the technology used in the emerging field of smartwatches. Lawyers are not expecting the same multi-million-dollar litigation boom that was seen in the patent wars stemming from the first smartphones, but they are predicting further claims as the market matures and a wider range of companies seek to create watches with ever-improved technology and design features.

这起诉讼看起来似乎是一个简单明确的知识产权争端，但它还是有关智能手表这一新兴领域所用技术的为数不多的几起诉讼之一。律师们不认为此案会掀起金额高达数百万美元的诉讼热潮，就像第一代智能手机曾引出的专利权大战那样；但他们预计，随着市场逐步成熟以及更多企业试图创造出技术和设计特性不断改进的智能手表，还会有更多的诉讼出现。

The battles between major tech companies including Apple, Nokia, HTC, Google and Sony over smartphone technology began in late 2009 when Nokia and Apple sued each other for alleged¹⁴ infringement¹⁵ of various patents. In the ensuing years, lawsuits, countersuits and trade complaints have mounted, resulting in verdicts and settlements that have reached and sometimes exceeded $1bn. Some cases are still going on.

包括苹果、诺基亚(Nokia) 宏达电(HTC)、谷歌(Google)和索尼(Sony)在内的科技巨头围绕智能手机技术展开的战争始于2009年末，当时诺基亚和苹果都把对方告上了法庭，互相指控对方侵犯了己方的多项专利。在接下来的几年间，诉讼、反诉讼以及贸易申诉的数量大增，由此产生了金额高达、有些时候甚至超过10亿美元的判决与和解。有些诉讼时至今日仍在进行。

Last year, Apple and Ericsson began a dispute over whether the Swedish technology group’s 4G mobile patents are essential for the manufacture of the iPhone and how much Apple should pay if they are. It was settled in December 2015 with a patent licensing deal between the companies.

去年，苹果与瑞典科技巨头爱立信(Ericsson)展开了一场诉讼，双方争论的问题是：爱立信的4G移动专利对于iPhone的生产制造而言是否不可或缺，如果答案是肯定的，苹果又应当为此支付多少钱。此案于2015年12月达成和解，两家公司之间达成了一项专利许可协议。

Alan Fisch, an intellectual property lawyer at Fisch Sigler in Washington DC, says the level of claims will depend on how popular the watches become. “Smartwatch patent battles will increase or decrease as a function of the demand for the product itself,” he says. “Substantial patent disputes often follow a substantial demand for a new product class. This was true for sewing machines in the 1800s, disposable diapers in the 1900s and smartphones in the 2000s.”

艾伦•菲什(Alan Fisch)是华盛顿特区菲什•西格勒(Fisch Sigler)律师事务所的一名知识产权律师。他表示，诉讼的数量水平将取决于智能手表未来的流行程度。 他说：“智能手表专利战的数量，将随着产品自身需求量的增减而变化。大规模的专利纠纷通常会随着市场对一种新兴产品类型的庞大需求而出现。十九世纪缝纫机问世时、二十世纪一次性尿布出现时以及二十一世纪智能手机诞生时都出现了这种情况。”

Analysts¹⁶ at Gartner, a technology research company, expect the market for smartwatches to soar, with sales projected to rise 6 per cent from 30.32m units in 2015 to 50.4m units this year, generating about $11.5bn in revenues. That figure is projected to increase even further in 2017 to 66.71m units.

科技行业研究公司高德纳(Gartner)的分析师预计，智能手表的市场将迎来飞跃，预计今年智能手表的销售量将从2015年的3032万台增长至5040万台，增幅达到6%，由此创造出约115亿美元的营收。2017年智能手表的销售量预计将进一步增长至6671万台。

Kurt Calia, a litigation partner at Covington & Burling in Silicon¹⁷ Valley, says that, so far, there is not the same demand for smartwatches that there has been for smartphones, but that could change as the technology develops and more companies introduce their own versions. Still, the market is never likely to be as big because smartwatches are not considered as essential as smartphones have become.

硅谷科文顿柏灵律师事务所(Covington & Burling)的诉讼合伙人柯特•卡利亚(Kurt Calia)表示，到目前为止，人们对智能手表的需求没有达到对智能手机的需求曾有的规模，但随着技术的发展以及越来越多的公司发布自己的智能手表产品，这种情况可能发生变化。但智能手表市场永远也不可能像智能手机那样庞大，因为智能手表在人们看来不像智能手机那样不可或缺。

“A lot of the foundational technology that formed the basis of the fight in the smartphone wars is still applicable, like touch screens,” says Mr Calia. Many of these disputes have now been resolved through lawsuits. “But there could be a number of other areas that are unique to smartwatches, such as biometric sensors that monitor your pulse. You can’t do that with your smartphone. Or around flexible displays, there’s a whole lot of technology around miniaturisation. If and when there are lawsuits I suspect it’ll be on those sorts of technologies.”

卡利亚指出：“大量构成智能手机专利战争议点的基础性技术，同样适用于智能手表，例如触摸屏。”很多这类争议现已通过诉讼的形式得到了解决。“但还有其他几个领域是智能手表所独有的，例如能够监控你脉搏的生物感应器。你无法通过智能手机实现这种功能。又或者是有关柔性显示器的专利，目前已有大量关于微型化的技术。如果有朝一日出现了有关智能手表技术的诉讼，我猜测将会是有关智能手表所独有的那一类技术。”

He cited a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas in which a patent that covered security systems, where a smartwatch could be used to turn on or off a car alarm, was in dispute. In that case, last June, Colorado-based Intellectual Capital Consulting sued Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, LG, Sony and car manufacturers including Audi, BMW and General Motors. It claimed they were infringing its patent for remote car start, lock and alarm systems via smartwatch.

他援引了德克萨斯州东区(Eastern District of Texas)联邦法院审理的一起案件，其中争议的焦点是一项涵盖安全系统的专利技术，通过该技术可以将智能手表用于打开或关闭汽车报警器。在去年6月的这起案件中，总部位于科罗拉多州的Intellectual Capital Consulting（简称ICC)起诉了苹果、三星(Samsung)、联想(Lenovo)、LG、索尼和包括奥迪(Audi)、宝马(BMW)、通用汽车(General Motors)在内的多家汽车制造商。ICC宣称，这些企业侵犯了它的一项专利，该专利是通过智能手表遥控汽车的启动、上锁以及警报系统。

“That’s an example where there’ll be a distinct point of function; those are the kinds of things we’ll probably see,” Mr Calia says. “There’s unlikely to be the big titan v titan litigation that we saw in the smartphone wars.”

卡利亚表示：“在这个案例中，诉讼围绕的是一个明确的功能点；那将是我们很可能看到的诉讼类型。不太可能出现像我们在智能手机专利战中所看到的巨头对巨头的大规模诉讼。”

Mauricio Uribe, a partner in Seattle with the intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens, says it is unlikely there will be a rash of claims over smartwatches because, in addition to it being a smaller market than smartphones, they do not work in the same way.

知识产权律师事务所克诺布马滕斯(Knobbe Martens)驻西雅图的合伙人毛里西奥•乌里布(Mauricio Uribe)表示，不太可能一下子出现大量有关智能手表的专利权诉讼，不仅是因为智能手表的市场规模比智能手机市场小，还因为智能手表和智能手机的工作模式也不一样。

“Other than some of the more generic¹⁸ Bluetooth or WiFi standards, the operation of smartwatches to date does not involve standardised technologies,” he says. “This makes patent evaluations¹⁹ more specific to the individual devices and does not lend itself to widespread licensing efforts akin²⁰ to the smartphones.”

他指出：“除了某些更加通用的蓝牙或WiFi技术标准，到目前为止智能手表的运行没有涉及到标准化技术。这使得相关专利的估值更加细化到个体设备，并且不能像智能手机领域那样用于大范围的专利许可发放。”

In the Valencell lawsuit, the problem began in February 2013 when Liang Hoe, at the time a senior partnership manager at Apple, contacted Valencell to discuss the latter’s heart-rate sensor technology. Talks between the two companies progressed and in June 2013 Dr Steven LeBoeuf, the co-founder of Valencell, met Apple representatives to discuss using some of its features in Apple’s products, the lawsuit says.

在Valencell一案中，问题始于2013年2月，时任苹果高级合伙人经理的Liang Hoe联系了Valencell，讨论后者的心率感应技术。起诉书称，两家公司之间的会谈取得了进展，Valencell的联合创始人史蒂文•勒伯夫博士(Dr Steven LeBoeuf)于2013年6月会见了苹果公司的代表，商讨将Valencell的某些特性用于苹果公司的产品。

In the summer of that year, Valencell demonstrated a watch to about 15 Apple employees that included a heart-rate monitor. Apple was sent some of the products powered by Valencell’s technology, known as PerformTek, the lawsuit alleges, and until March 2014 Apple carried out detailed²¹ testing on the products and analysed their circuitry. In December that year, there was another meeting with Dr LeBoeuf. By April 2015, Apple began shipping²² its watch, without ever negotiating a contract with Valencell, it is alleged. The North Carolina tech company is accusing Apple of infringing four of its patents and of unfair and deceptive²³ trade practices.

那一年夏天，Valencell向约15名苹果员工展示了一款带有心率监测器的手表。起诉书称，苹果收到了采用Valencell技术的几款产品，这项技术名为PerformTek；截至2014年3月，苹果对这些产品进行了详细的测试，并分析了它们的电路结构。那一年的12月，苹果又与勒伯夫博士举行了一次会面。到了2015年4月，苹果的智能手表产品开始出货，据称苹果始终没有与Valencell协商订立合同。Valencell现已起诉苹果侵犯自己的四项专利以及采取不公平和欺骗性的商业手段。

While the majority of legal disputes over smartwatches are bound to hinge on intellectual property rights, they are not the only issues engaging lawyers.

虽然绝大多数有关智能手表的法律争端都不可避免地围绕着知识产权，但知识产权并不是唯一需要律师出马的问题。

In the EU, regulation that takes effect in March gives smartwatch makers²⁴ an advantage: customs agents now have the right to seize any counterfeit²⁵ goods that pass through a country in the trade bloc²⁶. Previously²⁷, if the goods were shipped from China, en route to the US, for example, customs officers did not have the right to seize them, says Daniel Marschollek, a disputes partner at Norton Rose Fulbright in Frankfurt. “For sure there are counterfeit smartwatches out there,” Mr Marschollek says. “We have for a considerable period of time represented the then world-market leader in cell phones and whatever they launched was immediately copied.”

在欧盟(EU)，今年3月生效的一项法律赋予了智能手表生产商一项有利条件：海关官员现在有权没收途径欧盟任一成员国的任何伪造商品。诺顿罗氏律师事务所(Norton Rose Fulbright)驻法兰克福的诉讼合伙人丹尼尔•马斯科莱克(Daniel Marschollek)表示，以前的情况是，如果货物从比方说中国发出，正在运往美国的途中，欧盟的海关官员没有权利将其没收。马斯科莱克称：“毫无疑问市场上存在伪造的智能手表产品，我们曾在很长一段时间里代理当时手机领域的世界市场领导企业，那时不管他们发布什么产品，都会立刻被仿冒。”

Then there is the long-shot case filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a group called Coalition²⁸ Against Distracted Driving against companies including Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and Google. It asked for at least $1bn annually²⁹ to fund a public education campaign to explain the risks of using smartwatches while driving.

还有一起不大站得住脚的诉讼，由一个名叫“反走神驾驶联盟”(Coalition Against Distracted Driving)的团体在洛杉矶县加州高等法院提起，被告方是包括苹果、三星、微软(Microsoft)、谷歌在内的多家企业。该团体要求这些企业每年至少支付10亿美元，以支持一项向公众解释开车时使用智能手表风险的教育活动。

And in a David v Goliath dispute, a 32-year-old man from Wales won a lawsuit against Apple over a crack in his Apple Watch Sport, which he noticed 10 days after he bought it in July. The tech giant refused to reimburse³⁰ him because it said the claim was not covered by warranty³¹, but Gareth Cross challenged them in a small claims court in Aberystwyth, Wales, saying the company had claimed it was scratch-resistant. Apple was ordered to refund³² the watch, plus Mr Cross’s legal costs, and may have to change its marketing³³ claims as a result. Mr Cross told the BBC that despite the dispute, he would be buying another Apple Watch.

而在一起近似于蚂蚁对大象的诉讼案中，32岁、来自英国威尔士的加雷思•克罗斯(Gareth Cross)将苹果公司告上了法庭。克罗斯去年7月购入运动版苹果手表(Apple Watch Sport)，10天后发现手表上有一道裂痕，但苹果公司拒绝给他退款，称这一问题并不在产品的保修范围以内。于是，克罗斯在威尔士阿伯里斯特威斯(Aberystwyth)的一个小额求偿法庭上起诉了苹果公司，称苹果早前曾号称其智能手表是耐刮擦的。苹果被判退还智能手表价款，并承担克罗斯的诉讼费用，可能还得改变自己的营销宣传语。克罗斯对英国广播公司(BBC)表示，虽然经历了法律纠纷，他还是会再买一只苹果手表。