Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature

[MacRumors]

Apple has asked a U.S. federal appeals court to overturn an import ban on Apple Watch models with blood oxygen monitoring capabilities, arguing that the decision was based on a patent dispute involving an undeveloped competing product, Reuters reports.

On Monday, attorneys for Apple appeared before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest a 2023 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked imports of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in 2023 due to alleged patent infringement. The ban stemmed from a complaint filed by Masimo, a medical technology firm based in California, which accused Apple of violating its patents related to pulse oximetry — the measurement of blood oxygen saturation through non-invasive sensors.

Apple's legal counsel this week argued that the ITC's ruling was unjustified because, at the time Masimo filed its complaint in 2021, the company had not yet brought a competing product to market. Masimo's first smartwatch, the W1, which included blood oxygen tracking, was not released until 2022 — two years after Apple introduced the feature with the Apple Watch Series 6.

Apple maintains that Masimo's device was not market-ready when the company filed its complaint, and that the legal standard should not permit hypothetical products to justify trade restrictions. The decision had wrongly "deprived millions of Apple Watch users" of the blood-oxygen feature, Apple's attorney said.

Masimo's attorney countered that Apple was attempting to "rewrite the law" by asserting that the ITC should only block imports when a physical, commercialized product exists at the time of complaint filing.

The ITC originally ruled in Masimo's favor in October 2023, determining that Apple's implementation of blood oxygen measurement technology infringed several of Masimo's patents. As a result, the commission issued an exclusion order blocking imports of Apple Watch models that included the contested functionality. Following a brief stay granted by the Federal Circuit in December 2023, the import ban was reinstated in January 2024.

Apple subsequently modified its devices for the U.S. market, disabling the blood oxygen sensor in newly sold Series 9, Series 10, and Ultra 2 models in order to resume domestic sales without violating the order. International models retain full functionality.

The case remains under consideration by the Federal Circuit. A ruling is expected later this year.

Article Link: Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature

 

[kurtfoster]

It’s about time.

 

[con2apple]

Has anyone noticed that Apple only argues on an emotional level in court or in legal disputes?

With regard to the EU, Apple says that the DMA is interfering how the App Store works (which is a lie) and that the law confuses users and developers alike. (Which is completely irrelevant in court, even if it were true.)

Here, with regard to blood oxygen levels, Apple argues that there was no product yet (which is also completely irrelevant) and that millions of Apple users were wrongfully harmed because they did not get a feature.

This is the argument put forward by a corporation that protects hundreds of patents and designs every year. Some of these products never even make it to market.
And then there is also an attempt (as with the EU) to emotionally blackmail the court with the allegedly aggrieved Apple users. Except that Apple goes even further in the patent case and says in simple terms: "A user who does not get the feature we envision is aggrieved, even if they knew the feature did not exist."

What is actually going on at Apple?
Embarrassing marketing, designs that have been developed without considering the use in reality, and narcissistic arguments in court. It's as if factual arguments no longer count.

 

[JPack]

Here's a lawyer's take: the Court of Appeals is likely to affirm the ITC’s decision.

Apple, Too, Should Expect the Expected in Appealing Its ITC Loss to the CAFC

www.mintz.com

 

[Apple_Robert]

If the patent is valid, it doesn't matter whether or not Masimo had a working watch for sale at the time the complaint was filed, in my opinion.

 

[CPmav]

I’m really hoping I’ll get the blood oxygen sensor on my Ultra 2 soon! My theory, the second any possible injunction on the ban happens, Apple will immediately push out a software update that they have ready to go.

 

[jz0309]

Good luck Apple. A lot of users want that feature back.

 

[munpip214]

Apple, you need to either pay them or come up with your own thing. It’s been so many years now with no new health features.

 

[jz0309]

If the patent is valid, it doesn't matter whether or not Masimo had a working watch for sale at the time the complaint was filed, in my opinion.

It's about the ITC ruling, not the patent.
It might have been prompted by a having a competing product ready, not sure, and I'm not a lawyer

 

[JPack]

If the patent is valid, it doesn't matter whether or not Masimo had a working watch for sale at the time the complaint was filed, in my opinion.

True. And it actually shows how weak Apple's argument is.

Instead of going for a technical appeal of the patent, Apple is saying ITC made an administrative error when it said Masimo didn't have a product. That's not even a requirement. A product doesn't need to exist for a patent to be valid. The product can be under development or further investment.

Apple has zero technical arguments against the patent. This basically means Apple agrees they violated Masimo's patent.

 

[Apple_Robert]

It's about the ITC ruling, not the patent.
It might have been prompted by a having a competing product ready, not sure, and I'm not a lawyer

I realize it is about the ruling. I was just pointing out that I think Apple's appeal is nothing but hot air.

 

[FattiesGoneWild]

DENIED! Apple will continue to lose this one.

 

[JOMOD]

Not considering the upcoming watch until they get this back. Still have the latest that had the tech, got a seperate 10 last year, but will not get the new ultra, or any, until this is back.

 

[surferfb]

Here's a lawyer's take: the Court of Appeals is likely to affirm the ITC’s decision.

https://www.mintz.com/insights-

http://center/viewpoints/2024-05-14-apple-too-should-expect-expected-appealing-its-itc-loss-cafc

FWIW That link is over a year old and doesn’t reflect the arguments that took place today.

The judges who heard the appeal seemed at least potentially open to Apple’s argument. That doesn’t mean Apple is going to win, to be clear, but just wanted to flag.

 

[iSayuSay]

The saddest part is blood oxygen sensor is keep taking space, unused and Apple keeps paying for those sensors to be on Apple Watch. And knowing Tim, each cents count.

 

[ZipZilla]

I want a new Apple watch, but rely on the blood oxygen feature. So I'll keep my series 6 longer

 

[JPack]

FWIW That link is over a year old and doesn’t reflect the arguments that took place today.

The judges who heard the appeal seemed at least potentially open to Apple’s argument. That doesn’t mean Apple is going to win, to be clear, but just wanted to flag.

It’s the exact same argument, which is whether a “domestic industry” existed at the time. Masimo was actively investing in turning its patent into a product. They didn’t need to have a fully functional product for sale at all Best Buy locations for the patent to be valid.

Apple waited this long in line to present to the judges. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

 

[transpo1]

I want a new Apple watch, but rely on the blood oxygen feature. So I'll keep my series 6 longer

I bought a Series 9 before the blood oxygen sensor was removed. So as long as that holds up and they don't reintroduce the feature, I won't upgrade.

 

[xpxp2002]

Apple has zero technical arguments against the patent. This basically means Apple agrees they violated Masimo's patent.

Apple already litigated technical arguments and the courts decided against Apple. Practically speaking, they can’t keep relitigating the same argument once it has been decided and appeals have been exhausted.

Apple doesn’t have to agree with the courts’ decisions, but there’s nothing they can do in that realm if the courts have cast the final decision on the technical aspects of the patent and the accused violation.

 

[Apple_Robert]

For those who want a newer model, just get a medical grade pulse ox you place on your finger.

 

[DaveN]

It’s about time.

You better watch what you say.

 

[SFjohn]

Three more years before Masimo’s patents expire… 🤮

 

[JonYo]

An Apple win with this argument would be a terrible precedent, as it would basically say that whoever has enough money to bring the patent-utilizing product to market first wins, and large corporations would always achieve that over small companies due to their massive deep pockets, basically stealing patents from small companies.

 

[JPack]

Apple already litigated technical arguments and the courts decided against Apple. Practically speaking, they can’t keep relitigating the same argument once it has been decided and appeals have been exhausted.

Apple doesn’t have to agree with the courts’ decisions, but there’s nothing they can do in that realm if the courts have cast the final decision on the technical aspects of the patent and the accused violation.

If Apple had a valid technical reason why they thought ITC’s assessment and appeals decision were wrong, then Apple could have brought it up today. There was nothing. Apple’s argument today is basically, for a patent to be valid, there has to be a commercial product available. Prototypes don’t count. That’s nuts.

 

[JPack]

An Apple win with this argument would be a terrible precedent, as it would basically say that whoever has enough money to bring the patent-utilizing product to market first wins, and large corporations would always achieve that over small companies due to their massive deep pockets, basically stealing patents from small companies.

Yup, most of the inventors on Shark Tank would be screwed. No commercial product? Only prototype? Invalid patent.