The way forward for the Apple Watch Collection 9 and Apple Watch Extremely 2 stays murky — not less than within the US — because the courts proceed to sift by means of a number of instances between Apple and well being expertise corporations that maintain some patents on the expertise used within the Apple Watch.
Particularly, Apple has been preventing patent battles on two fronts, with KardiaBand maker AliveCor accusing the corporate of infringing on its ECG expertise and Masimo submitting swimsuit on the heartbeat oximetry expertise that powers the Apple Watch blood oxygen sensor.
Whereas AliveCor’s case is still ongoing, the Masimo patent litigation got here to a head in October when the US Worldwide Commerce Fee (ITC) dominated that the majority Apple Watch fashions did certainly infringe on two of Masimo’s patents. Because of this, the ITC issued a restricted exclusion order (LEO) and a stop and desist order (CDO) that may forestall Apple from importing or promoting the infringing Apple Watch fashions in the US. Solely the Apple Watch SE was excluded because it doesn’t embody the infringing expertise.
Following a compulsory 60-day Presidential evaluate interval, the two ITC orders came into effect on Christmas Day, ensuing within the Apple Watch Collection 9 and Apple Watch Extremely 2 being pulled from sale, together with the refurbished inventory of the Apple Watch Collection 8. Apple rapidly appealed the choice, asking the US Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to not solely rule on the ITC case but additionally to situation a keep on the ITC orders till that enchantment could possibly be heard.
The appellate courtroom granted Apple a temporary pause the very subsequent day, allowing the Apple Watch to go back on sale. Nevertheless, it wasn’t clear how lengthy that may be the case, because the courtroom made it clear that the interim keep was solely in impact till it gave the ITC an opportunity to reply, after which it might determine on whether or not to situation a everlasting keep pending the end result of Apple’s enchantment.
Unsurprisingly, the ITC has filed its official opposition to the US appeals courtroom’s resolution, making it abundantly clear that it believes the ban ought to stay in impact and calling out Apple’s case as “weak and unconvincing.”
Apple presents a weak and unconvincing case to invoke the extraordinary treatment of a keep pending enchantment below the Normal Havens elements. Its arguments quantity to little greater than an indisputably adjudicated infringer requesting permission to proceed infringing the asserted patents. ITC nonconfidential response in opposition to Apple’s movement for a keep pending enchantment
In opposing the movement, the ITC cites most of the identical arguments it made when it shot down Apple’s request for a delay in December, particularly that none of what Apple offered as “admittedly troublesome authorized questions” are literally “admittedly troublesome” and that Apple has not made a convincing argument that its case is “prone to succeed on its deserves” or that it’ll endure the “irreparable hurt” that it claims attributable to lack of popularity and goodwill from not having the ability to promote the Apple Watch in the US.
Mainly, Apple fails to display the 2 most essential elements in granting a keep — chance of success on the deserves and irreparable hurt. ITC nonconfidential response in opposition to Apple’s movement for a keep pending enchantment
Whereas the US Court docket of Appeals has granted a brief keep, it’s not obligated to comply with by means of on that if it finds the ITC’s opposing arguments convincing. Nevertheless, the courtroom can be permitting till January 15 for motions in assist of an interim keep, throughout which Apple will very doubtless submit its personal arguments towards the ITC response.
Sooner or later after that, the appellate courtroom will situation its closing ruling, which might discover the Apple Watch pulled from cabinets by the tip of subsequent week. Nevertheless, even when Apple prevails in getting a longer-term keep, it can nonetheless must persuade the courts that it didn’t infringe on Masimo’s patents whereas dealing with one other enchantment on an identical case that AliveCor already received in early 2023.
AliveCor and the Apple Watch ECG
In February 2023, the ITC decided in AliveCor’s favor, ruling that the Apple Watch ECG function did certainly infringe on AliveCor’s patents. It issued a restricted exclusion order just like the one within the Masimo case that may have seen the Apple Watch banned from sale within the US by the tip of February.
The one factor that saved the Apple Watch then was that Apple managed to persuade the US Commerce Division’s Patent Trial and Enchantment Board (PTAB) that the relevant AliveCor patents were invalid and subsequently unenforceable.
Each Apple and AliveCor appealed these respective choices, Apple on the ITC ban order and AliveCor on the PTAB resolution. On the identical time, Apple filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AliveCor, alleging that AliveCor’s KardiaBand really violated two of Apple’s patents.
Whereas courts received’t hear the ITC and PTAB appeals till later this 12 months, AliveCor informed iDrop Information as we speak that it’s getting traction in its protection towards Apple’s patent infringement claims with an Inter Partes Review (IPR) by the PTAB that would see Apple’s patents equally declared invalid.
AliveCor applauds the U.S. Patent Trial and Enchantment Board (PTAB) choices to institute Inter Partes Assessment (IPR) of two patents Apple meritlessly asserted towards AliveCor. These establishment choices intently comply with final week’s resolution by the Court docket within the Northern District of California to remain the underlying district courtroom case whereas the PTAB analyzes the validity of Apple’s patents. AliveCor assertion
The corporate additionally provides that the enchantment of its 2021 antitrust case towards Apple can be continuing, with a trial date anticipated later this 12 months.
Individually, our antitrust case towards Apple is continuing within the U.S. District Court docket, Northern District of California, the place the decide will determine a number of pending motions earlier than setting a trial date for later this 12 months. Our instances are amongst many current developments revealing the extent of Apple’s bullying.AliveCor assertion
Though Masimo was allegedly engaged on pulse oximetry expertise for years, AliveCor had a tangible product in the marketplace; almost a 12 months earlier than Apple added ECG capabilities to the Apple Watch Collection 4, AliveCor’s KardiaBand grew to become the primary Apple Watch accent to be cleared by the FDA to take ECG readings.
AliveCor claimed that Apple not solely poached this concept however infringed on its patents in doing so, and made deliberate modifications in watchOS as “behind-the-scenes acts of sabotage” to interrupt KardiaBand’s SmartRhythm app.