Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,517
17,862


Apple must face a patent infringement lawsuit over the heart rate technology in the Apple Watch, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today.

applewatchheartrate2.jpg

Back in 2018, Apple was sued by Omni MedSci, with the company alleging that Apple used its patented technology in the Apple Watch. Apple reportedly met with Omni MedSci between 2014 to 2016 to discuss a possible partnership, but Apple is said to have ended discussions and used technology from four Omni patents anyway.

According to Reuters, Apple attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed.

Omni MedSci is owned by Mohammed Islam, who has been described as a "poster child for a patenting professional." He owns six companies and has collected more than 150 patents. In the past, he has used those patents to sue companies that include Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, Huawei, Nokia, and Siemens.

Islam is employed by the University of Michigan, and Apple's argument for dismissal was that his patents were owned by the university, which the University of Michigan supported on behalf of Apple. The appeals court decided that was not the case, and that Islam's employment agreement did not automatically assign his patents to the university.

Omni MedSci has claimed that Apple willfully infringed on its patents. The company is seeking an injunction to stop the sale of the Apple Watch, along with damages. Omni MedSci's attorney told Reuters that the company is "pleased by not surprised" by the ruling.

Article Link: Apple Can't Escape Apple Watch Heart Rate Sensor Patent Lawsuit, Court Rules
 

poked

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2014
267
148
If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?
 

GeoStructural

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2016
783
2,561
Colombia
If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?

Yes, but you will always find people here defending Apple for unethical practices like this. Anyone who ever sues Apple is deemed a ”patent troll”, like that Brazilian company that was in operation before Steve Jobs was even in middle school and registered/marketed iPhone before such a thing existed in the US, they were not spared the fury of the blind fandom.

Apple, just pay the money. I find ridiculous that they charge companies for using their Lighting Connector based on a 20+ year old technology but do not want to pay for the use of 5G technology and sensors they benefit from, need, and do not own.
 
Last edited:

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,925
32,366
California
If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?

Nobody has accused apple of stealing the technology. They are accused of infringing a patent, that they didn’t know about, and which may or may not be valid and may or may not be enforceable. And if it’s invalid and enforceable, the burden is still on the patent owner to show that it has been infringed. Apple wins most of the patent lawsuits against it (the ones that go to trial), so assuming that Apple infringes, at this early stage, is a bit cart before the horse.
 

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,925
32,366
California
Cracks me up when these companies seek an injunction to stop the sale…oh really so Apple is going to just stop selling the watch altogether? Gtfo

If the injunction were to be granted then yes, they would stop selling the watch. Such injunctions are rare, because the court must balance competing interests, and the party seeking the injunction has to show that they would otherwise suffer some sort of harm that could not be compensated for by a payment of money later on.
 

poked

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2014
267
148
Cracks me up when these companies seek an injunction to stop the sale…oh really so Apple is going to just stop selling the watch altogether? Gtfo
Or they are seeking an injunction until Apple modifies the patented technology to not infringe..? You don’t have to re-invent the wheel, but Apple does need to take steps to fix the issue. Collaborative steps with a clear “this is yours and this is mine” would have been a lot easier. Or they could pay to use the patent and continue to use the technology. And yeah, Apple probably won’t stop selling the watches, but they’ll still be fined heavily, and will be asked to either remove the tech or purchase a license to use the patent.
 

ArPe

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2020
1,283
3,311
If you patent it, you own that patent.

Unless its a patent troll with no intention to make a product. That really needs to be regulated but because lawyers control America and they make money from patent trolls this 💩isn’t going to change soon.

There are also overlaps in inventions. You can make a heart rate monitor that can overlap on someone’s patent without malicious intent. The whole thing patent system sucks and needs to change. China is doing a much better job at ensuring patents are easier and cheaper to access for all their companies. But of course it sucks when they steal from elsewhere.
 

poked

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2014
267
148
Nobody has accused apple of stealing the technology. They are accused of infringing a patent, that they didn’t know about, and which may or may not be valid and may or may not be enforceable. And if it’s invalid and enforceable, the burden is still on the patent owner to show that it has been infringed. Apple wins most of the patent lawsuits against it (the ones that go to trial), so assuming that Apple infringes, at this early stage, is a bit cart before the horse.
Except the patent was put into the technology. And the title states Apple lost the patent lawsuit appeal, which means they have to continue the evidence portion of proving they DIDNT steal the tech outlined explicitly by the patent that IS BEING USED currently (allegedly) or infringing upon the patent created. Apples to Apples, in this case.
Is my technicality alright to you now? :p
 

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
28,008
16,390
Gotta be in it to win it
Yeah but you will always find people here defending Apple for unethical practices like this. Anyone who ever sues Apple is deemed a ”patent troll”, like that Brazilian company that was in operation before Steve Jobs was even in middle school and registered/marketed iPhone before such a thing existed in the US, they were not spared the fury of the blind fandom.

Apple, just pay the money. I find ridiculous that they charge companies for using their Lighting Connector based on a 20+ year old technology but do not want to pay for the use of 5G technology and sensors they benefit from, need, and do not own.
Who said apple “stole” anything? That’s different than patent infringement. We’ll see what happens in the trial.
 

GeoStructural

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2016
783
2,561
Colombia
Cracks me up when these companies seek an injunction to stop the sale…oh really so Apple is going to just stop selling the watch altogether? Gtfo
It has happened in the past, Apple was forced to stop selling iPhone 7 and 8 in Germany for patent infringement. Why would you be surprised if they are forced to stop selling the watch.
 
Last edited:

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,925
32,366
California
Except the patent was put into the technology. And the title states Apple lost the patent lawsuit appeal, which means they have to continue the evidence portion of proving they DIDNT steal the tech outlined explicitly by the patent that IS BEING USED currently (allegedly) or infringing upon the patent created. Apples to Apples, in this case.
Is my technicality alright to you now? :p

No, that’s not how it works. They lost the appeal on the issue of who owns the patent. The accused infringer NEVER has to prove they DON’T infringe. The burden of proof is always on the owner of the patent.

And patent infringement is not “stealing.”
 
Last edited:

mannyvel

macrumors 65816
Mar 16, 2019
1,085
1,851
Hillsboro, OR
Interesting that Apple didn't get indemnification from Rockley (the British firm that does its medtech). Maybe Apple isn't using Rockley stuff for heart rate monitoring?
 

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,925
32,366
California
Or they could pay to use the patent and continue to use the technology. And yeah, Apple probably won’t stop selling the watches, but they’ll still be fined heavily, and will be asked to either remove the tech or purchase a license to use the patent.

There are no fines in patent infringement cases. If found to have infringed, Apple would have to pay damages to the patent owner in the form of lost profits (if applicable) or a reasonable royalty.
 

happydude

macrumors 65816
Sep 2, 2006
1,130
617
a gasping dying planet
there's no justice in the American court system unless you have the money to pay for it. any and all merits and arguments aside, apple will win overall. they might have to pay something, or maybe they throw the full weight of their hoard of cash on hand to destroy this guy and his case. they'd see it as potential slippery slope with one loss or settlement leading to an avalanche of other lawsuits. my money is on apple's legal team prevailing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.