ITC Wants Apple Watch Sales Ban Reinstated: 'Apple Presents a Weak and Unconvincing Case'

[seek3r]

Maybe it works for some and not for others as well. I am not saying it is medical grade; but one time when I visited the Doc's office, I tested it and it came back with the same number as the office equipment. 🤷‍♂️

Works for me too, I've tested in against the dedicated pulseox I keep in my car's jumpbag, it's been within a couple percent anytime I've compared 🤷‍♂️

 

[lkrupp]

If indeed apple looses this case, which I think they will, then Apple should be made liable for Masimo's 100 million court bill.

Not a chance but you can dream

 

[ronntaylor]

If indeed apple looses this case, which I think they will, then Apple should be made liable for Masimo's 100 million court bill.

If Apple loses, they'll be liable for billions. $100M will be an afterthought. Masimo better hope it doesn't lose this case and the case brought by Apple in Delaware. It'll all be for naught and the company will implode.

 

[onenorth]

If Apple loses, they'll be liable for billions. $100M will be an afterthought. Masimo better hope it doesn't lose this case and the case brought by Apple in Delaware. It'll all be for naught and the company will implode.

There is no liability in the ITC case unless the import ban is reinstated and Apple violates the ban. The ITC case is a civil action by the government against Apple and Masimo is not a party.

 

[ronntaylor]

There is no liability in the ITC case unless the import ban is reinstated and Apple violates the ban. The ITC case is a civil action by the government against Apple and Masimo is not a party.

Yes, you're right. I was conflating Masimo's case against Apple that resulted in a hung jury. They promised to continue on with that case and hope that Apple is found liable for infringement of the remaining patents that went to the 1st jury. I think Masimo will wait to see what happens with the ITC case as the 1st jury mostly sided with Apple. Anything can happen with a completely new jury, but if the ban is reinstated, it makes it harder for Apple to prevail in the cases that will take many years with appeals available to both sides.

 

[onenorth]

Yes, you're right. I was conflating Masimo's case against Apple that resulted in a hung jury. They promised to continue on with that case and hope that Apple is found liable for infringement of the remaining patents that went to the 1st jury. I think Masimo will wait to see what happens with the ITC case as the 1st jury mostly sided with Apple. Anything can happen with a completely new jury, but if the ban is reinstated, it makes it harder for Apple to prevail in the cases that will take many years with appeals available to both sides.

Yes. There are a lot of moving parts and differing opinions coming from multiple places (jury, ITC, appeals court).

I find it interesting that the administrative law judge at the ITC only found infringement of two claims in one patent, but the ITC commission ultimately added one more claim to the first patent a few more claims in a second patent, in disagreement with the ALJ. All of this suggests that there is a lot of uncertainty in which, if any, of Masimo's patent claims are infringed and whether the commission followed the same analysis as the ALJ. (I could be mistaken but I think the commissions analysis is sealed, but we got a taste of it this week in the ITC's brief opposing the motion to stay the exclusion order.)

We will get yet another opinion from the appeals court which could be different once again, perhaps in Apple's favor or not, and that one may hold the most sway in the related litigation.

On January 10, 2023, the ALJ issued the Final ID, which found that Apple violated section 337 as to claims 24 and 30 of the ’648 patent, but not as to claim 12 of the ’501 patent, claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent, claim 12 of the ’648 patent, claims 9 and 27 of the ’745 patent, and claim 9 of the ’127 patent. See Final ID at 335–36.

On May 15, 2023, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in part. See 88 FR 32243, 32243–46 (May 19, 2023). The Commission requested briefing on certain issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. See id.

On October 26, 2023, the Commission issued its final determination in this investigation, finding Apple in violation of section 337 as to only claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent. 88 FR 75032, 75032–33 (Nov. 1, 2023).

 

[ronntaylor]

Welp!

U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined on Friday that Apple can use a redesign to bypass an import ban on newer Apple Watch models stemming from its patent infringement dispute with medical-monitoring technology company Masimo, according to a Monday court filing.

 

[dk001]

Welp!

Customs and Border? ROTFLMAO!!!!

 

[onenorth]

Welp!

If the court extends the stay, then the redesign becomes moot. Stay tuned.

Edit to add: we don't yet know what the redesign is, but I believe that a possible solution is to move all pulse oximeter functions to the iPhone and just have the watch send over raw, unprocessed data from the sensors. Again, stay tuned.

 

[justperry]

It is in the UK.

NL too.