Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech

[MacRumors]

Apple this week secured another victory in its ongoing legal dispute with heart monitoring company AliveCor, after a federal appeals court upheld a 2024 ruling that found Apple's changes to the Apple Watch were lawful product improvements rather than anticompetitive behavior.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that rejected AliveCor's antitrust claims. AliveCor had argued that Apple illegally monopolized the market for heart rate analysis apps on watchOS when it replaced its Heart Rate during Physical Observation (HRPO) algorithm with its heart rate neural network (HRNN) algorithm in watchOS 5.

AliveCor claimed that Apple changed the algorithm so that its ECG KardiaBand could no longer identify irregular heart rhythms – as part of an alleged effort to "eliminate opposition" in the heart rate analysis space – and requested that it reinstate the old algorithm.

Apple argued that AliveCor did not have the right to dictate Apple's design decisions, and that the request to support the older heart rate technology would require the court to be a day-to-day enforcer of how Apple engineers its products. The court ultimately agreed with Apple.

The Ninth Circuit has now affirmed Apple's victory. "The undisputed evidence shows as a matter of law that Apple's refusal to share HRPO data was not anticompetitive," the court wrote. It added that even if some form of heart rate data access were essential for competing in the market, AliveCor's claim would still fail because Apple provides app developers with access to the same Tachogram API data that Apple's Irregular Rhythm Notification feature uses.

The appeals court also rejected AliveCor's argument that Apple had a duty to share its proprietary data with competitors. The ruling said that antitrust laws generally impose no obligation for companies to deal with their rivals. It also noted that such a requirement "would implicate the same concerns regarding incentives to innovate and judicial competency that the Supreme Court has articulated."

The decision is Apple's second major win against AliveCor within the last year. In March, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidation of three AliveCor patents related to heart rate monitoring, vacating an International Trade Commission ruling that could have led to an Apple Watch import ban.

AliveCor said at the time of the court's original ruling that it was "deeply disappointed" by the decision and would continue to explore all available legal options, including potential appeals.

Article Link: Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech

 

[vegetassj4]

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?

 

[Chazak]

Time to give up.

 

[hieranonymous]

AliveCor expecting Apple to reengineer its mass-market products to accommodate its extremely niche accessory is peak clown behavior.

 

[Valen1]

Could our elected officials focus on addressing patent trolls among other things and not on TDS?

 

[HouseLannister]

Oh good, I was worried the lawyers' children were going to go hungry this winter!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?

View attachment 2594442

They can’t monopolize any market that doesn’t include one of their trademarks in the market definition. They’re just not that well used worldwide. Can they monopolize, say, Apple Keynote? Well, sure, because it’s Apple’s Keynote. They can’t monopolize “presentation software”, though, and I don’t think anyone would seriously expect that they could.

But, most wouldn’t call something like that a monopoly, anyway. It’d be more accurate to describe it as a “product or service they sell,” which is the same for any product or service they have registered a trademark for.

 

[bviktor]

Could our elected officials focus on addressing patent trolls among other things and not on TDS?

You don't know what a patent troll is.

AliveCor is a legit company with legit products. And they even came first. But somehow Apple got away with all this.

 

[jimscard]

You know, Apple has brought significant consumer value to the Apple Watch, both with Blood Oxygen and ECG. These provide valuable medical information to the users, at a low cost, because it's bundled in with a device they already have. The key value is that people don't need to pay extra / get an add-on, and because of that, the technology gets to a lot more people. After all, you don't buy an ECG / heart rate monitoring device specifically unless you know you have/had an irregular heartbeat.

But by adding it to a watch you're buying anyway, now there's an opportunity for people to catch these arrhythmias early, when they first happen, and do something about it.

AliveCor makes the Kardia device. I've owned two of them, and currently pay a subscription fee to them. Why? I had problems in the past, and the fact that they have a device that can do a 6-lead ECG is worth it.

Companies like AliveCor and Masimo should focus on their value-add, and build on what Apple's brought to the everyday consumer, who would never be their customer anyway.

 

[captrlp]

AliveCor takes advice from Sweeney!

 

[svish]

Good for Apple. Big relief for Apple. Will be good if there won't be further appeals.

 

[btrach144]

You know, Apple has brought significant consumer value to the Apple Watch, both with Blood Oxygen and ECG. These provide valuable medical information to the users, at a low cost, because it's bundled in with a device they already have. The key value is that people don't need to pay extra / get an add-on, and because of that, the technology gets to a lot more people. After all, you don't buy an ECG / heart rate monitoring device specifically unless you know you have/had an irregular heartbeat.

But by adding it to a watch you're buying anyway, now there's an opportunity for people to catch these arrhythmias early, when they first happen, and do something about it.

AliveCor makes the Kardia device. I've owned two of them, and currently pay a subscription fee to them. Why? I had problems in the past, and the fact that they have a device that can do a 6-lead ECG is worth it.

Companies like AliveCor and Masimo should focus on their value-add, and build on what Apple's brought to the everyday consumer, who would never be their customer anyway.

Some people would rather play the victim. Or they need to listen to their lawyers less.

 

[davwilliams]

Here comes all the macrumors' outhouse patent law experts weighing in!

 

[Saiguanntigew]

AliveCor expecting Apple to reengineer its mass-market products to accommodate its extremely niche accessory is peak clown behavior.

I don't get it, how did Apple changing watch code affect this other company's devices? I can see it wrecking their app for Apple Watch things (the relevant models,) but it's super unclear and qualifies as fsckery in relevant court arguments, if only AliveCor made those?

Also NO, doesn't AliveCor just want raw data instead of RNN neatened stuff? The code's at hand, but Apple values its varietal Dev rug pull?

 

[justanotherdave]

The appeals court also rejected AliveCor's argument that Apple had a duty to share its proprietary data with competitors.

The sheer arrogance and entitlement thinking companies should be forced to share data.


I also find it funny this article hasn’t even hit 20 comments. Probably because Apple won. If Apple lost we’d be at 20 PAGES of legal “experts” telling us how evil Apple is. 🙄

 

[djphat2000]

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?

View attachment 2594442

Nope.

 

[djphat2000]

"The appeals court also rejected AliveCor's argument that Apple had a duty to share its proprietary data with competitors."

Just like with say, EPIC. Which is why they have to pay Apple for their IP. This should pretty much seal that.

"The ruling said that antitrust laws generally impose no obligation for companies to deal with their rivals."

Even if Apple was a Monopoly. They are under NO obligation to share their IP with anyone.

 

[jecowa]

I don't get it, how did Apple changing watch code affect this other company's devices? I can see it wrecking their app for Apple Watch things (the relevant models,) but it's super unclear and qualifies as fsckery in relevant court arguments, if only AliveCor made those?

Also NO, doesn't AliveCor just want raw data instead of RNN neatened stuff? The code's at hand, but Apple values its varietal Dev rug pull?

I’m not sure, but I think before AliveCor could access the raw data, but now they have to go through an API that only gives them Apple’s analysis on what the heart rate was.

 

[jhfenton]

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Holding hands and singing Kumbaya with all of their competitors sounds like illegal collusion.

 

[NT1440]

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?

View attachment 2594442

Wtf does the heart rate algorithm’s engineering design have to do with monopoly?

Apple has a lot of faults in this regard, but this specific case isn’t a supporting argument.