Apple Won't Face AliveCor Antitrust Lawsuit Over Apple Watch Heart Rate Technology

[MacRumors]

An antitrust lawsuit that AliveCor filed against Apple back in 2021 will not proceed, with the judge overseeing the case today filing a summary judgment in Apple's favor.

The full ruling is under seal as of now due to confidentiality requests from Apple and AliveCor, but the filing makes it clear that the case went in Apple's favor and the Cupertino company was not found to have engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

AliveCor claimed that its "SmartRhythm" app that worked with its ECG KardiaBand was targeted several times by Apple for App Store rule violations, and then rendered non-functional with a change to the Apple Watch heart rhythm algorithm in watchOS 5.

When watchOS 5 launched, Apple introduced its heart rate neural network (HRNN) that improved heart rate calculations during workouts. AliveCor claimed that Apple changed the algorithm to impact the KardiaBand, and demanded that Apple continue to support the older, less accurate technology that worked with the SmartRhythm app.

AliveCor argued that the watchOS 5 changes were aimed solely at preventing third-party apps from identifying irregular heart rhythms, and that the update "eliminated competition" and deprived consumers of "choice for heartrate analysis." AliveCor was seeking damages and an injunction that would require Apple to "cease its abusive conduct" and continue to support the old heart rate 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.

Apple in a statement to MacRumors said AliveCor's lawsuit attempted to challenge Apple's ability to improve the Apple Watch, with the company thanking the court for its decision.

"At Apple, our teams are constantly innovating to create products and services that empower users with health, wellness, and life-saving features. AliveCor's lawsuit challenged Apple's ability to improve important capabilities of the Apple Watch that consumers and developers rely on, and today's outcome confirms that is not anticompetitive. We thank the Court for its careful consideration of this case, and will continue to protect the innovations we advance on behalf of our customers against meritless claims."

AliveCor in a statement to MacRumors said that it is disappointed with the court's decision and will appeal.

AliveCor is deeply disappointed and strongly disagrees with the court's decision to dismiss our anti-competition case and we plan to appeal. We will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property to benefit our consumers and promote innovation. The dismissal decision does not impact AliveCor's ongoing business; we will continue to design and provide the best portable ECG products and services to our customers.

Separately, the ITC's findings that Apple has infringed AliveCor's patents still stand. Both the ITC and U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals will be reviewed at the Federal Circuit in the Northern District of California in the coming months. In other recent developments, the PTAB recently ruled in AliveCor's favor by instituting Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Apple's patents and a stay of Apple's countersuit.

AliveCor has also filed several patent infringement lawsuits against Apple, claiming that Apple copied its cardiological detection and analysis technology. These lawsuits are separate from today's antitrust decision.



Article Link: Apple Won't Face AliveCor Antitrust Lawsuit Over Apple Watch Heart Rate Technology

 

[sniffies]

Well, thank god for that.

But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, Apple faced antitrust lawsuits over Apple Watch being a watch.

 

[kylelerner]

I guess their KardiaBand wasn't AliveCor long.

 

[grantishere]

Companies try to find really any way to get money from Apple

 

[roar08]

Oh no. What are the haters gonna hate...

 

[jz0309]

AliveCor argued that the watchOS 5 changes were aimed solely at preventing third-party apps from identifying irregular heart rhythms, and that the update "eliminated competition" and deprived consumers of "choice for heartrate analysis." AliveCor was seeking damages and an injunction that would require Apple to "cease its abusive conduct" and continue to support the old heart rate 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.

I have to assume this is an accurate synopsis and therefor I am in agreement with the courts decision, and baffled that they are planning to appeal.

 

[hieranonymous]

AliveCor is a textbook sour-grapes patent-troll. Good riddance.

 

[rwright]

AliveCor is a textbook sour-grapes patent-troll. Good riddance.

Which textbooks are you reading? AliveCor had prior, a working device and had the band (both of which I used) before Apple integrated that functionality into its watches. The original device AliveCor had was nothing short of magic. It's a clear case of Sherlocking if nothing else. Will be interesting to see if patents were violated. Either way, AliveCor was there first so one can hardly call them a patent troll.

 

[DocMultimedia]

And now time to get rid of the oxygen measurement lawsuit.

 

[jvchappy]

I love how some companies are really trying to hold apple back from impacting the health of hundreds of millions of apple users. Health IP laws need to change

 

[TechnoMonk]

Which textbooks are you reading? AliveCor had prior, a working device and had the band (both of which I used) before Apple integrated that functionality into its watches. The original device AliveCor had was nothing short of magic. It's a clear case of Sherlocking if nothing else. Will be interesting to see if patents were violated. Either way, AliveCor was there first so one can hardly call them a patent troll.

This Ruling isn’t about Patents. It was about AliveCor wanting Apple to support older and less accruate technology that integrated with their SmartRythm App and Kardiaband

When watchOS 5 launched, Apple introduced its heart rate neural network (HRNN) that improved heart rate calculations during workouts. AliveCor claimed that Apple changed the algorithm to impact the KardiaBand, and demanded that Apple continue to support the older, less accurate technology that worked with the SmartRhythm app.

No Thanks. I want accuracy over some Company crying about compatibility.

 

[steve09090]

I love how some companies are really trying to hold apple back from impacting the health of hundreds of millions of apple users. Health IP laws need to change

Totally. We are here for their money. ...health, I mean health, We are here for their health.

 

[Shirasaki]

Typical Apple. I expect nothing more. Also

“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”

Isn’t this what patent is for to enforce how Apple engineers so they cannot just do whatever they like without court involvement?

 

[G5isAlive]

Typical Apple. I expect nothing more. Also

“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”

Isn’t this what patent is for to enforce how Apple engineers so they cannot just do whatever they like without court involvement?

The patents case is a separate suit. This was about AliveCor objecting to Apple changing Apple’s technology, and thereby obsoleting AliveCor’s App being anti competitive. The judge rules Apple had the right to update its technology.

 

[Jay Tee]

I have to assume this is an accurate synopsis and therefor I am in agreement with the courts decision, and baffled that they are planning to appeal.

I really don't think Apple would have gone out of their way to cripple these apps.

Good apps strengthen the Apple Platform.

 

[steve09090]

I really don't think Apple would have gone out of their way to cripple these apps.

Good apps strengthen the Apple Platform.

Exactly. They’re not going to hold back their development and they would have had a development timeline on this for years at the point of changing it.

 

[Analog Kid]

I love how some companies are really trying to hold apple back from impacting the health of hundreds of millions of apple users. Health IP laws need to change

That’s not what this is. They had a product that was obsolete by improved technology. I don’t blame them for trying, but I’m glad the court found that you can’t force a company to forever carry the burden of earlier designs.

 

[jz0309]

Typical Apple. I expect nothing more. Also

“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”

Isn’t this what patent is for to enforce how Apple engineers so they cannot just do whatever they like without court involvement?

What are you talking about? No patents involved here. Apple changed some algorithms that rendered a device/app non-functional and they decided to sue Apple to revert the algorithm change …

 

[quietstormSD]

Well, thank god for that.

But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, Apple faced antitrust lawsuits over Apple Watch being a watch.

You know companies are looking for their pay day when Apple comes out with a product. Everyone wants there money.

 

[PowerButton]

Typical Apple. I expect nothing more. Also

“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”

Isn’t this what patent is for to enforce how Apple engineers so they cannot just do whatever they like without court involvement?

I think you’re misunderstanding the case.

Simply put, AliveCor had an inferior product based on Apple’s older [less reliable] framework. Apple changed its framework to make it more reliable subsequently bricking AliveCor’s product and now they want Apple to essentially spend money on supporting its older software.

 

[svish]

Very good for Apple. One legal issue less to worry about.

 

[Wanted797]

Well, thank god for that.

But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, Apple faced antitrust lawsuits over Apple Watch being a watch.

Breguet has entered the chat.

 

[JCCL]

Well, thank god for that.

But I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, Apple faced antitrust lawsuits over Apple Watch being a watch.

Thank god? Were you really genuinely concerned that Apple may get another lawsuit?

 

[CapitalIdea]

This lawsuit trying to force Apple to support a worse and less accurate heart rate algorithm to keep someone else afloat is a lot like the way Epic (the medical records one, not the Fortnite one) threw a fit when Apple built out technology that lets you easily and securely take your medical data from one healthcare provider to another. It suddenly make that VERY expensive platform seem a little less exciting.

 

[hieranonymous]

Which textbooks are you reading? AliveCor had prior, a working device and had the band (both of which I used) before Apple integrated that functionality into its watches. The original device AliveCor had was nothing short of magic. It's a clear case of Sherlocking if nothing else. Will be interesting to see if patents were violated. Either way, AliveCor was there first so one can hardly call them a patent troll.

AliveCor gained FDA approval for the Kardia Band in 2017. Apple gained FDA approval for the Apple Watch’s ECG functionality in 2018. If you think Apple "Sherlocked" AliveCor’s functionality that quickly, you don’t know anything about Apple’s development lead times. ECG functionality was on the Apple Watch roadmap since pretty much the Series 0’s introduction.