直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Smart Baby Monitors May Be Considered Medical Devices by FDA

June 16, 2022

By Meredith H. Boerschlein; Megan L. Meyers; Ryan P. O'Quinn, Ph.D.

In 2018, Apple made headlines when it released a new version of its smartwatch that included an FDA-cleared electrocardiogram feature. Conor Hale, New Apple Watch receives FDA clearance for built-in ECG, Fierce Biotech (Sept. 12, 2018). This feature cemented the smartwatch’s classification as a medical device. With the popularity of wearable health devices, from fitness trackers to smartwatches, on the rise among adults, it was only a matter of time before much younger demographics were targeted—babies and children.

Smart baby monitors tout features to help ease the anxieties that accompany new parenthood. For example, Owlet, Inc. advertises that its wearable, smart baby monitor is “up all night for your peace of mind.” Owlet® Dream Sock, Owlet, (last visited May 18, 2022). As these monitoring systems become more sophisticated, companies will not only have to contemplate intellectual property protection, but they may also have to consider whether their product qualifies as a medical device requiring premarket approval or marketing clearance from FDA.

According to FDA, “[a] baby product is considered a medical device if claims to cure, treat, prevent, or reduce a disease or condition are made in the product’s labeling, packaging, or advertising.” Baby Products with SIDS Prevention Claims, FDA (May 18, 2022); see also 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). Last year, Owlet pulled its wearable baby monitor, the Smart Sock, off the market after FDA informed the company in a warning letter that the monitor had been brought to market without the required regulatory approval. The Smart Sock wraps around a baby’s foot to track sleep patterns, blood oxygen saturation, and heart rate. This information is transmitted to a connected base station and smartphone app to alert caregivers to potential health conditions. FDA noted that the product’s monitoring of these vital signs is intended to diagnose desaturation and bradycardia to alert users that the measurements are outside preset values. This put the Smart Sock within the definition of a medical device, thus requiring marketing authorization from FDA. Warning Letter to Owlet, Inc. (Oct. 5, 2021). Earlier this year, Owlet launched its new smart baby monitor that still tracks the baby’s heart rate but only sends alerts related to sleep quality issues. According to its website, Owlet plans to seek authorization to market the heart rate and oxygen notification features that sparked the warning letter. FDA Response, Owlet (updated Feb. 1, 2022).

INVU, a separate wearable device made by Nuvo Group, has already received market clearance from FDA. This device is a wearable band that measures and displays maternal heart rate, fetal heart rate, and uterine activity in a pregnant woman in the third trimester. The device is indicated for use both at healthcare facilities and at home to allow for remote monitoring. Ltr. from FDA to Nuvo Group Ltd. (May 28, 2021). With digital health on the rise, industries like the baby monitoring industry may see an uptick in applications to FDA for marketing approval.

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)

Life Sciences

Medical Device and Diagnostics

Digital Health

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Meredith H. Boerschlein
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4454
Email
Megan L. Meyers
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6565
Email
Ryan P. O'Quinn, Ph.D.
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2426
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP