It's interesting to note that Masimo's CEO is a megadonor an a very close friend of the Biden family. The ITC ruling helped Biden's friend.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 Once Again Available to Purchase From Apple's Online Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not that interesting. It's a independent court that Biden has zero control over, as it's under the Judiciary branch.
The ruling judge, Monica V. Bhattacharyya, was hired by Jason E. Kearns, who was reappointed by Trump in 2017 to his position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple met with Masimo to collaborate on adding the sensor to the Apple Watch, then month later offered their top employees double the pay and millions in Apple stock to co e work at Apple. Then created a “new” patent for the sensor with the lead designers name from Maximo signed on the patent (that’s Evidence, and very stupid of Apple, I mean come on Apple). That’s why there is enough in this case for the trade commission to ban the import until they figure out what’s going on.
Apple got caught with its 'hands in the cookie jar' over its Watch design and has been forced to temporarily pull the device off the market
Apple is racing to change the software algorithms and presentation of its blood-oxygen app to sidestep claims in a lawsuit.
tons of other articles and you can find the patent and search the employee and see his work history too.
Not even a courtroom drama on Netflix would have so many twists and turns, and without having to wait a week for a new episode too 
Outside of the court documents, Apple has been pretty quiet. We've only heard one side's narrative about what has gone down. As far as stealing the IP, Apple has already been found to not infringe on a number of the claims and other patents have been completely thrown out. Unfortunately this is how the current patent system tends to play out - file everything under the sun and see what may hold up when/if the time comes.
As far as poaching, that's just called business. Apple even got in trouble once for having non-poaching agreements. It's on Masimo if they can't pay enough to retain their top talent. I looked up some jobs at Masimo and for being in CA and the qualifications required, they were paying way too little for a skillset that is also desired by big tech.
They can't; there hasn't been any ruling in Apple's favor. It's just a hold until a future trial/ruling.
Apple can't sue the ITC as it's a federal court.
So does this mean any company will be allowed to steal patents? No consequences?
Following a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals staying the Apple Watch import ban, Apple has returned the Apple Watch Series 9 and the Apple Watch Ultra 2 to its online stores in the U.S., and they should also be available in some Apple retail stores.
Apple on Tuesday filed an emergency request asking for the import ban to be paused while an appeal is under way. The appeals court implemented an interim stay while it decides whether it will grant Apple's request for a stay for the entire length of the appeal, and as a result, Apple can once again sell Apple Watch models with blood oxygen sensing technology.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) has until January 10 to file a response to Apple's request for a stay, and other parties have until January 15 to submit letters supporting or opposing the import ban. Apple should be able to continue to sell the watch at least until the appeals court makes a final ruling on the stay, which will happen at some point after January 15.
If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, the import ban on the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 will be paused for the entire duration of the appeals process. If the court does not rule in Apple's favor, the import ban will be reinstated. The appeals process could last for many months, so Apple may get a significant reprieve as it argues against the ITC's decision.
The ITC in October decided that Apple had infringed on blood oxygen sensing technology patented by Masimo, and put in place a U.S. import ban that went into effect on December 26. In preparation for the ban, Apple actually stopped sales online on December 21, and ended in-store sales after December 24.
The Biden administration had the opportunity to veto the import ban, but opted not to do so, making the import ban official. To get around the Apple Watch legal issues, Apple will need to win its appeal against Masimo, settle with Masimo, or remove the infringing blood oxygen sensing technology from the Apple Watch lineup.
The import ban only affected Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models sold in Apple retail stores and the online store in the United States. Sales in other countries have not been affected, and the Apple Watch models have continued to be available in the U.S. in stores like Target, Walmart, and Best Buy.
Article Link: Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 Once Again Available to Purchase From Apple's Online Store
If any company stole anything from Apple they would definitely use everything in their power to stop it.
No. It means nothing more than Apple is allowed to import their watches from China into the US, pending a future ruling.
Masimo's case has been less than convincing. Many of their claims have been dismissed and it ain't looking good for them beyond the ITC ban that's now on hold and will probably become useless if Apple can implement a work-around before the pleadings are due at the Appeals Court.
Apple escapes a trade secret verdict over a key smartwatch feature that could have cost the company as much as $1.85 billion
A jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict in a trial during which medical-devices company Massimo claimed Apple ripped off its blood-oxygen sensor.
No, the ITC is a federal court, given authority over patents by the Tariff act in 1930.
United States Court of International Trade - Wikipedia
Apple is laughing all the way to the bank. With all the publicity surrounding this situation, it was like a marketing boost for them. People rushed out and bought these watches before the ban went into effect. I'd bet they have sold many more Series 9s and Ultra 2s than they otherwise would have.
Thanks, I understand what poaching is, I’ve done it myself, but appreciate the academic lesson. One thing is poaching. Another one is to ask them to reproduce the work they developed for their previous employer. I don’t believe anyone could compete with Apple’s pockets when they’re set on getting someone, would they? Or do you have any information indicating that Masimo compensates below market or how these individuals were compensated?
It looks like Apple blatantly thought they could get away with it by copying the technology. They didn’t. Stop defending your corporation. They’re just people. And they sometimes have poor judgement as well, just like we all at times.
I doubt it. Most people don't follow or care about such things.. and Christmas is over.
My wife is an attorney and she hadn't even heard about it until I asked a question, and she follows legal news.
It looks like Kearns was originally nominated by Obama, then by TrumpNo, the ITC is a federal court, given authority over patents by the Tariff act in 1930.
United States Court of International Trade - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You are confusing the United States Court of International Trade with the ITC. You supplied the wrong link.No, the ITC is a federal court, given authority over patents by the Tariff act in 1930.
United States Court of International Trade - Wikipedia
I completely agree.
We don’t have to take side.
But as a customer I have far more interests in Apple’s products than Maximo’s.
This is a very important point.
No one here, or I highly doubt anyone here, knows what type of negotiations have gone on to get to this point. I've heard speculation that Masimo wanted to use a bunch of Apples patents in exchange. And I will clarity, an unreasonable usage in scope. I have no idea whether it is true or not.
What I will say is that if Apple feels it could get a better set of terms from the ITC or courts then how bad of an offer was Masimo making and not budging from.
it is a COURT decision. Not some sensationalist media crusade. Why court are known to make mistakes, is it really so hard to believe that your beloved Apple could make a mistake? They're PEOPLE, and like everyone else, they can exhibit poor judgement, or hire an executive with less-than-ideal ethics and morals.
The ITC is arguably worse. An administrative judge issues a initial determination, which is essentially a recommendation to the board of commissioners, who are not bound by the initial determination and can (and do) whatever they want. That happened here, where the commissioners deviated from the judge's recommendation.
The ITC is a federal administrative agency, not a federal court. This is the wrong link.No, the ITC is a federal court, given authority over patents by the Tariff act in 1930.
United States Court of International Trade - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_International_Trade_Commission
That they hired an employee who's name was in a patent, and their compensation is completely irrelevant.
Apparently the "new" patent cleared Apple's patent lawyer office to be submitted, and apparently got granted.
My request for "evidence" was in response to the claim that apple willfully asked the employee to use their knowledge in the previous patent - there is no evidence for that.
Now there's dispute over said patents, what I've read is that 3 out of 5 patents in the dispute were already invalidated, Masimo convinced the ITC and now apple is fighting that. These trials will consider all "evidence" on hand and we shall see what comes out of this at the end of the day.
Speaking of shooting from the hip...
My prediction is that if the appeals court grants the stay pending appeal, then the import ban is all but over for good. The reason is that by then the court will have been briefed on the major issues and will likely tell us what they think Apple's chances of success are. If they think Apple has a good chance to win, it will be evident in their order and the ITC will have an uphill battle. Very often these appeals are all but decided on the order granting or denying a motion to stay, and the appeal effectively ends there. Next month will be interesting.
My prediction is that if the appeals court grants the stay pending appeal, then the import ban is all but over for good. The reason is that by then the court will have been briefed on the major issues and will likely tell us what they think Apple's chances of success are. If they think Apple has a good chance to win, it will be evident in their order and the ITC will have an uphill battle. Very often these appeals are all but decided on the order granting or denying a motion to stay, and the appeal effectively ends there. Next month will be interesting.
A patent is a public document. Anyone can use the info in the patent as long as they don't infringe the claims. The claims may not cover everything described in the patent. It is very fact dependent, so there would be a lot of evidence to consider. The best way to get at that is to review the factual findings of the ITC. However, I have not yet been able to locate that document.
You have been clearly stating that Apple willfully hired and asked said employee to copy/steal the technology in question - there is no evidence for that.
For all I know 3 out of 5 Masimo patents that are being talked about have been invalidated and apple is using the legal system to its full extend, and whether or not all patents will be upheld remains to be seen until a final ruling on this matter is there.
And if it turns out that apple indeed violated a patent, then they will pay the price, and if not, then the other side will pay ...
Apple could be considered the small company trying to get into healthcare.
Masimo is the large established healthcare company trying to keep competitors out.
I'm not saying Apple is correct (litigation will decide) but I think that claiming Masimo is being bullied by Apple is wrong.