UnaliWear has filed a second import complaint against the big wearable makers, and the first thing worth noticing is who isn't on it.
The complaint was filed on September 21, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on September 24 under docket DN 3937. It names Samsung, Google and Garmin. Apple, which was a respondent in UnaliWear's first case, is absent.
Who Is Actually Named
The Federal Register notice lists the respondents by legal entity, which matters more than the brand names:
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
- Google LLC of Mountain View, California
- Garmin Ltd. of Switzerland
- Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
- Garmin USA, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas
Both American subsidiaries of Samsung and Garmin are included alongside the parent companies, which is standard for a Section 337 action. The complainant wants a limited exclusion order blocking importation, cease and desist orders against domestic sales, and a bond imposed during the 60-day Presidential review period under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
The Case Got Broader
The first UnaliWear complaint was about fall detection. It was filed in December 2025, and the USITC instituted an investigation on January 8, 2026 as 337-TA-1477. That case is still moving through the system before an administrative law judge, and it identified its patents up front: US 10,051,410 and US 10,687,193.
The new one is titled Certain Wearable Activity and Health Monitoring Devices and Systems Containing Same. That wording covers a lot more ground than fall detection alone, which suggests UnaliWear is reaching for a wider set of accused features.
What the Filing Doesn't Say
Here's the part that constrains everything above. The Federal Register notice does not identify the patents, the patent claims, or the accused products.
That's not a reporting gap. The notice genuinely doesn't contain them. So while the broader title hints that this case extends past fall detection, that remains a clue rather than a conclusion.
There's also no product list. Garmin recently finished rolling out fall detection to the Venu 4 through its 18.30 software update, but nothing in the DN 3937 paperwork connects the Venu 4, that update, or any other named Garmin device to the complaint.
The same caution applies to Google and Samsung. Their presence in the filing makes this relevant to Pixel Watch and Galaxy Watch owners, but it doesn't establish that any particular watch uses the technology UnaliWear says infringes its rights.
The USITC Hasn't Decided Anything Yet
The Commission has not yet decided whether to formally institute an investigation. Right now it's soliciting comments on public interest issues, with submissions due eight calendar days after publication.
This is the procedural pattern these cases follow, and it's worth walking through because import-ban language makes filings sound more immediate than they are:
- The Commission receives the complaint
- The Commission decides whether to institute an investigation
- Evidence and claim construction follow
- An administrative law judge issues an initial determination
- Only then does a possible remedy get discussed
Every step is a gate. UnaliWear filing a complaint is step one of five. The Commission has taken wearable makers through this before, including in an Apple ECG import case that ran the same route.
Why Apple Might Be Missing
The honest answer is that nobody outside the filing knows.
There are two obvious explanations, and the public notices don't contain enough evidence to choose between them. Either the new allegations concern technology or products that differ from Apple's implementation, or UnaliWear is pursuing a separate litigation strategy and has chosen to leave Apple out of this track.
The second is not unusual. Splitting a case can narrow the issues an administrative law judge has to reach, which can speed up a determination. It can also reflect a decision that the strongest claims run against a subset of respondents, and that adding Apple would complicate the case without adding much.
Either way, the first case still names Apple. So this isn't Apple getting clear. It's Apple being left out of one of two parallel actions.
What This Is Really About
UnaliWear makes the Kanega watch, a cellular watch designed for older adults with fall detection, medication reminders and a voice assistant rather than a screen full of complications. The company has a genuine stake in fall-detection patents, and it has now filed two complaints in nine months.
There's a real question underneath all this, and it's the same one every wearable maker faces eventually. Fall detection and cardiac event detection on a wrist are built from overlapping pieces: motion sensing, heart rate data, and an algorithm that decides when the combination means something bad happened. Draw the patent boundaries tightly and a lot of shipping products cross them.
That's what the institution decision will clarify. If the USITC opens an investigation and publishes the asserted patents, we'll learn which specific features UnaliWear believes are its property, and whether the case is really about fall detection wearing a broader label.
Bottom Line
A second import complaint against Garmin, Google and Samsung is a real development, and Apple's absence is genuinely interesting. But DN 3937 is a filing, not a finding.
No patents have been named, no products have been accused, and no investigation has been opened. The next real update comes when the Commission decides whether to institute, because that notice should finally say what UnaliWear is claiming and against which devices.
Until then, nothing about owning a Pixel Watch, Galaxy Watch or Garmin changes.
Sources: the USITC's Notice of Receipt of Complaint published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2026 (document 2026-19491) for docket DN 3937, covering the September 21 filing date, the named Samsung, Google and Garmin legal entities, the Section 337 allegation, the requested limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and bond under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j), the eight-day public interest comment window, and the absence of any identified patents, claims or accused products; the USITC's institution notice for investigation 337-TA-1477 covering the December 2025 filing and the January 8, 2026 institution, including US patents 10,051,410 and 10,687,193 and the fall detection scope; and reporting from Gadgets & Wearables on the September 28 complaint, the broadening from fall detection to activity and health monitoring, the Venu 4 and 18.30 context and the procedural status.
