Apple Accuses AliveCor of 'Brazen' Patent Infringement in New Countersuit

[Robert.Walter]

I have to say considering Kardia were on the market way before Apple was, like a good couple of years, I think I’ll side with Kardia. Apple could easily patent anything they like at any time, and it’s not till someone complains that they get called out.
Kardia are also way better as at first they did 2 lead readings I think and now do 6 lead, Apple has stuck to 1 for years now with absolutely no innovation in its ECG reader. Both are accurate, I only use my Apple Watch though but have considered switching to Kardia for its 6 lead readings.

”According to Apple, AliveCor's product line has not been successful with customers, and the company's "failures in the market" have led it to "opportunistic assertions of its patents against Apple."

To be honest that’s just total BS by Apples lawyers, Kardia are hardly a mass market device and are recommended by cardiologists, it’s hardly a mass number who need one, Apple sticking an EKG on EVERY Apple Watch sold since the series 4 tends to give them a dominant advantage in the market that it can abuse as they see fit, like claiming Kardia haven’t been as successful, well if as many people needed Kardia EKG readers as Apple has sold watches since the Series 4, then their would be something SERIOUSLY wrong with the human races health.

Agree w most of your comment except for last paragraph.

Cardia, given that it advertises in prime time is definitely a mass market device.

Your comparison of apple’s multi function watch with cardias single purpose device is inapt both as a Badis for apple abusing market and meaning people buying the Watch meaning people in generally poor health.

You say cardia is recommended by cardiologists, I have no quibble with that but it is also promoted to the general public. It’s this second mass market category that compares to the Watch. Both are an attempt to increase sales by democratizing ekg functionality and the best part of this is that many folks with undiagnosed arrhythmias will detect something and have the chance to see a doctor before a problem strikes.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Apple is the pioneering innovator, having researched, developed, and patented core, foundational technologies before AliveCor came into existence.

Considering that AliveCor developed and released their ECG product years before Apple, this declaration must mean Apple has researched, developed, and patented a time machine.

You must not know how patent priority works. You should look it that.

 

[Robert.Walter]

I think that’s a hard one for Apple to prove, they may have patented the idea, like they constantly do with hundreds of ideas, but I don’t think Apple will have been developing it for 10 years.

It takes a long time to develop medical tech that often has to pass a government certification process.

 

[steve09090]

Apple is the pioneering innovator, having researched, developed, and patented core, foundational technologies before AliveCor came into existence.

Considering that AliveCor developed and released their ECG product years before Apple, this declaration must mean Apple has researched, developed, and patented a time machine.

The release date is completely irrelevant.

 

[BootsWalking]

The release date is completely irrelevant.

Which is why I said "developed and released".

 

[BootsWalking]

You must not know how patent priority works. You should look it that.

You must not know that the US patent laws changed in 2013 from a first-to-invent to a first-to-patent. You should look into that. Alivecor developed and released their product in 2012, which means their claim falls under the prior patent priority rules.

 

[woolypants]

We've been using Kardia ECG sensors for quite a while.

A huge difference between AliveCor and Apple health features is that AliveCor is for people with actual medical conditions. They make medically-certified devices that show results you can take to your doctor.

Apple's health features are notoriously aimed at sports or, more commonly given not all of us run miles everyday, the so-called "worried well" — those who are healthy but concerned they might not be. The focus on the latter is what caused many of the Apple Health team to leave: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/20/apple-health-team-tension-report/

When the ECG app for the Apple Watch was unveiled last year, the report claims that some employees were "frustrated" by the negative reaction from some doctors and others in the medical industry, as these employees are said to have pushed for a "small and focused product launch" that would have involved gathering feedback from the medical community to reduce any potential pushback.

I would be concerned if Apple caused AliveCor any trouble here because AliveCor use technology to make important home diagnostic equipment. Apple isn't interested in that market.

 

[BootsWalking]

According to Apple, AliveCor's product line has not been successful with customers, and the company's "failures in the market"

AliveCor makes low-volume critical medical diagnostic equipment. Apple's definition of failure is not extracting every last dollar from its customers.

 

[genovelle]

That’s some stretch, considering Alivecor was founded in 2011, and Apple didn’t launch its ECG in the Apple Watch till 2018.

Being launched and being developed and patented are too different things. A company Is founded when someone has an idea. It takes years to develop technology and more time to get patents approved on that tech. Apple could have had the idea for their tech while developing the first watch. The dates they submitted their original patents is what matters here. Not comparing a company founded date to a product launch date.

 

[dbwie]

As others have said, AliveCor’s product predated Apple’s to market. And measuring EKG predates both of them. I wonder if it comes down to the software that is used to interpret the measurements. When I had the AliveCor product connected to my iPhone, it would not always get reliable readings, and the help files talked about eliminating wireless interference that could impact connectiion of the device to the iPhone. This is why I sold the AliveCor when Apple Watch EKG came out.

 

[jlc1978]

I would be concerned if Apple caused AliveCor any trouble here because AliveCor use technology to make important home diagnostic equipment. Apple isn't interested in that market.

I suspect this is the old IBM tactic: "You sue us for patent violations, ok. Wait a few minutes while we go through our warehouses filled with patents to see which you violate. Do you want to fight it out in court for years, or reach a reasonable sttlement and get on with your business? Your call."

 

[jonblatho]

It takes a long time to develop medical tech that often has to pass a government certification process.

At least with respect to the United States, where the feature launched, Apple didn’t put the ECG feature through the full FDA approval process.

 

[Carnegie]

This is a counter suit. The ITC ruled that Apple infringed on AliveCor patents last year. I know these things take time, and I didn’t word things well in my last comment (a patent is a patent is a patent), but I don’t understand why so many people always give Apple the benefit of the doubt. The only thing in their favor right now is a press release and a counter suit announcement.

Competition is good, and Apple is in a unique position to stifle it, so we should call it out when we see it rather than blindly defend 🤷‍♂️ and obviously have an open mind. Maybe I’m completely wrong here, but I don’t get the blind following. Coming from someone who has read this site every day for the last 17 years and could technically be considered a “fanboy”.

All that said, I do still mostly agree with you. I was heated when I saw the headline and posted my first comment, but we do need to wait and see. To say it’s a blatant lie was an exaggeration. I just wish more people on here would advocate for the little guys. It’s possible to both do that and be an Apple fan.

I don't know whether Apple's characterization as "brazen infringement" is a fair one. But I'd note a couple of things in response to your post.

First, while an ALJ for the ITC has made an initial determination that Apple infringed two AliveCor patents, the full Commission (i.e. the ITC) has yet to issue a decision on the matter.

Second, the PTAB has instituted Inter Partes Reviews that cover all of the claims which the ALJ (initially) determined that Apple infringed. That means the three APJ panel from the PTAB found that Apple had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in proving that the patent claims are invalid. The IPRs are ongoing, as is the ITC action.

 

[Carnegie]

That’s some stretch, considering Alivecor was founded in 2011, and Apple didn’t launch its ECG in the Apple Watch till 2018.

Some of the patents implicated by a given device might be applied for, and even granted, many years before that device is released - perhaps even before development of that particular device is begun.

One of the patents that Apple asserts AliveCor infringed claims priority to 2008. And some of the asserted patents don't relate to ECGs specifically - meaning, they didn't necessarily come from Apple's development of ECG technology for its Apple Watch.

 

[Carnegie]

Apple is the pioneering innovator, having researched, developed, and patented core, foundational technologies before AliveCor came into existence.

Considering that AliveCor developed and released their ECG product years before Apple, this declaration must mean Apple has researched, developed, and patented a time machine.

I'm not sure how "this declaration must mean Apple has researched, developed, and patented a time machine" follows from "[c]onsidering that AliveCor developed and released their ECG product years before Apple."

One of the asserted patents claims priority to 2008. That's what's relevant, not when Apple began developing or releasing ECG products in particular. Further, the patents don't only relate to ECG technology.

 

[coffeemilktea]

ECG "KardiaBand"

I misread that as "ECG Cardi B" and I was really confused; that'll teach me to not read the news before I've properly woken up and had caffeine. 😅

 

[haruhiko]

Easy for Apple to see every app's source code once it's submitted to the app store so Apple can easily steal the concept.

Apple Health is the furthest from innovative- all of the 'health' features in iOS have been around for a decade and were created by big pharma and med. device companies.

Nothing in this comment is true. It’s so amazing.

The Apple Watch is one of the best product of Apple in the past decade.

 

[citysnaps]

As a user of AliveCor products, they were in the business previously holding a lot more IP. I am sure Apple must have done a good amount of work to enhance the experience, but not original. Knowing how Apple bullies around with its massive legal team, it will be tough for AliveCor.

I'm wondering how you ascertained that? Have you done a thorough patent search and studied the claims? How many?

 

[BootsWalking]

I'm not sure how "this declaration must mean Apple has researched, developed, and patented a time machine" follows from "[c]onsidering that AliveCor developed and released their ECG product years before Apple."

One of the asserted patents claims priority to 2008. That's what's relevant, not when Apple began developing or releasing ECG products in particular. Further, the patents don't only relate to ECG technology.

Was it the rounded corner patent?

 

[Pezimak]

The time between coming up with an idea, patenting it and launching a product can be long. I've worked with some medical device companies and their R&D to product timelines can easily be 7 or more years.

Apple isn't a medical device company though, and its ecg reader isn't a medical device. Although it's accurate and certified it's incredibly limited. A doctor would use it as an advice rather then 100% accurate.
Although I appreciate it can take a while to develop a product.

 

[Ronlap]

I have to say considering Kardia were on the market way before Apple was, like a good couple of years, I think I’ll side with Kardia. Apple could easily patent anything they like at any time, and it’s not till someone complains that they get called out.
Kardia are also way better as at first they did 2 lead readings I think and now do 6 lead, Apple has stuck to 1 for years now with absolutely no innovation in its ECG reader. Both are accurate, I only use my Apple Watch though but have considered switching to Kardia for its 6 lead readings.

”According to Apple, AliveCor's product line has not been successful with customers, and the company's "failures in the market" have led it to "opportunistic assertions of its patents against Apple."

To be honest that’s just total BS by Apples lawyers, Kardia are hardly a mass market device and are recommended by cardiologists, it’s hardly a mass number who need one, Apple sticking an EKG on EVERY Apple Watch sold since the series 4 tends to give them a dominant advantage in the market that it can abuse as they see fit, like claiming Kardia haven’t been as successful, well if as many people needed Kardia EKG readers as Apple has sold watches since the Series 4, then their would be something SERIOUSLY wrong with the human races health.

Agree on all points. Kardia offered their standalone device how long before the Apple watch? And even after the watch could do single lead, Kardia was doing 6-lead - just as you point out. And how is it NOT successful with customers? My cardiologist wrote me an RX for the original and the 6-lead so that my FSA would reimburse me.

 

[ericthered926]

And what evidence is that

It was a personal anecdote and a verifiable timeline, also taking into account the context that AliveCor won the original suit. Apple is countersuing because they originally lost; the court originally ruled that Apple infringed on AliveCor patents. New information that we don’t have yet might change that, but if/until then, I’m going to keep rooting for the little guy.

 

[Pezimak]

It takes a long time to develop medical tech that often has to pass a government certification process.

Again I can appreciate it has a government certification, it's one of the reasons I got an Apple Watch with an ecg, but it is not really a medical device, your doctor wouldn't solely rely on an Apple Watch reading for instance.

 

[Pezimak]

Some of the patents implicated by a given device might be applied for, and even granted, many years before that device is released - perhaps even before development of that particular device is begun.

One of the patents that Apple asserts AliveCor infringed claims priority to 2008. And some of the asserted patents don't relate to ECGs specifically - meaning, they didn't necessarily come from Apple's development of ECG technology for its Apple Watch.

Interesting what you say in the last paragraph. So possibly Apple cannot claim Alivecor infringes on its actual ECG patents. What did the Alivecor patents relate to that a judge has already Apple infringed on?

Will be an interesting battle to follow, although I'll never forgive Apple if they force Alivecor out of business due to their complete lack of development of their ECG reader.

 

[Pezimak]

Agree on all points. Kardia offered their standalone device how long before the Apple watch? And even after the watch could do single lead, Kardia was doing 6-lead - just as you point out. And how is it NOT successful with customers? My cardiologist wrote me an RX for the original and the 6-lead so that my FSA would reimburse me.

My cardiologist did recommend the Alivecor but I chose the Apple Watch as it was something I could put on my wrist and do other things with and it was recently released when I got it.
But I must say I've been very disappointed in Apples complete lack of innovation or development in the watches ECG reader since launch, all they've done is adjust the algorithm to be handle high heart rates better etc. Reading blood oxygen in my case is completely useless.

Meanwhile Alivecor launch a 6 lead device, which is Mike's more accurate as a result.