Apple will pause U.S. Apple Watch sales starting December 21

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Apple Watch edited December 2023

Apple will be stopping sales of the Apple Watch in the United States, in order to comply with an ITC ruling in its patent infringement dispute with Masimo.




With the Apple Watch import ban in the United States set to start from Christmas Day, Apple is bracing itself for the ban being upheld by the Biden administration.

Confirmed to AppleInsider, it is putting a hold on sales of its newest models from December 21 from the online Apple Store. For Apple Stores, sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 will stop after December 24.

In a statement, Apple acknowledges that the Presidential Review Period is in progress. It also notes that the review period doesn't end until December 25, and so it is preemptively taking steps to comply with a ban.

The full statement from Apple on the matter, first spotted by 9to5Mac on Monday morning, is clear about the steps that the company will take in the short-term.

A Presidential Review Period is in progress regarding an order from the U.S. International Trade Commission on a technical intellectual property dispute pertaining to Apple Watch devices containing the Blood Oxygen feature. While the review period will not end until December 25, Apple is preemptively taking steps to comply should the ruling stand.

This includes pausing sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 from Apple.com starting December 21, and from Apple retail locations after December 24.

Apple's teams work tirelessly to create products and services that empower users with industry-leading health, wellness, and safety features. Apple strongly disagrees with the order and is pursuing a range of legal and technical options to ensure that Apple Watch is available to customers.

Should the order stand, Apple will continue to take all measures to return the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to customers in the U.S. as soon as possible.

Apple Watch import ban: the story so far



Medical company Masimo filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in 2020, claiming Apple stole trade secrets and violated patents with the blood pulse oximeter in the Apple Watch. This was followed up by a U.S. International Trade Commission filing in 2021.

An import ban wouldn't affect the public as the sensor isn't "essential to the public health or welfare," Massimo reasoned. This was due to Apple's warnings in fine print that the measurements from the sensor "should not be relied upon for medical purposes," Masimo declared.



While the District Court trial ended in a mistrial and didn't resume, the ITC did rule in favor of Masimo in January. In October, the ITC then issued an order barring the U.S. import of any Apple Watch models that violated Massimo's patents, triggering a 60-day review period with the White House.

If the White House review agrees with the ban, it will be enforced from December 25, halting the import and sale of the products. Apple could still appeal the decision from the ITC, but not until after the 60-day review period concludes.

It is almost certain Apple will contest the import ban, as otherwise it will theoretically last until the patent itself expires in August 2028. The appeal filing will probably contain a request to hold off the ban until another review takes place, though the court could decide not to temporarily lift it.

The ban's effects on consumers



Existing Apple Watch owners won't be affected by the ban, as it only applies against the import for sale and the sale of the wearable. For potential Apple Watch buyers, the ban will prevent sales of affected models.

Those models include the Apple Watch Series 6 and later iterations. Earlier models and the Apple Watch SE are unaffected due to the lack of the blood oxygen-sensing feature.

Apple's warranties will also be operating as normal, so any purchased devices within warranty can still be serviced by the company.

Consumers in countries and territories unaffected by the ITC ruling won't feel the effects of the ban, with Apple Watch sales continuing outside of the United States as usual.

Today's best Apple Watch deals



If you'd like to get an Apple Watch for Christmas, retailers are currently offering deals on the latest models.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,342member
    I still don’t understand why an established well defined 50+ year old technology can lead to these decisions.  We live in a time when cheap $20-30 pulse oximeters are readily available.  Obviously none of these manufacturers are paying royalties to Masimo.

    Of all the crazy patent claims why this one and not one of the previous patent fights??!
    lordjohnwhorfinAlex1Nwatto_cobrasdw2001
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    badmonk said:
    I still don’t understand why an established well defined 50+ year old technology can lead to these decisions.  We live in a time when cheap $20-30 pulse oximeters are readily available.  Obviously none of these manufacturers are paying royalties to Masimo.

    Of all the crazy patent claims why this one and not one of the previous patent fights??!
    Masimo patented a specific method of reading from a wristworn smart device, not pulse oximetry as a discovery. It's that method that Apple was found to infringe, rightly or wrongly. Apple patents many a method for using a technology they did not invent. Same thing here.
    edited December 2023
    lordjohnwhorfinbyronlkillroybala1234grandact73Alex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
     3Likes 0Dislikes 4Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 29
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,342member
    It looks like Masimo has appended the company’s contribution to the wikipedia entry for pulse oximetry-

     In 1995,  introduced Signal Extraction Technology (SET) that could measure accurately during patient motion and low perfusion by separating the arterial signal from the venous and other signals. Since then, pulse oximetry manufacturers have developed new algorithms to reduce some false alarms during motion, such as extending averaging times or freezing values on the screen, but they do not claim to measure changing conditions during motion and low perfusion. So there are still important differences in performance of pulse oximeters during challenging conditions.”

    etc etc.

    It looks like they have been improving the technology in terms of cardiac output via pulse variability and accuracy.

    So perhaps there is a case here.
    byronlAlex1N
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 29
    They do that all the time, Apple and Qualcomm, remember??…..$$$ talks and Apple have lots of them. Attorneys won here for sure. We consumers lost…..
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 5 of 29
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,312member
    Well, this should guarantee a ton of Apple Watch sales over the next few days as FOMO sets in. Ultimately, Apple will either buy themselves more time by winning the case for "further review" (this is where those Tim Cook dinners at the White House come in handy) or they will come to some sort of licensing agreement with Masimo. I'm sure development on the Watch 10 is already finished and incorporates the same Masimo technology, so the stakes and costs here for Apple go beyond suspension of US sales of existing models. 
    byronlkillroyAlex1Nwatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 6 of 29
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 685member
    jfabula1 said:
    They do that all the time, Apple and Qualcomm, remember??…..$$$ talks and Apple have lots of them. Attorneys won here for sure. We consumers lost…..
    Consumers will not lose anything as this will be resolved. 
    byronlwilliamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 29
    Build or assemble more in the US 😄
    williamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 29
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,594member
    Interesting that Apple is letting this run so close to the wire here. I guess they are playing hard arse to get a discounted settlement.
    williamlondonjas99
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 9 of 29
    pwrmac said:
    Build or assemble more in the US 😄

    Nothing to do with a patent. but carry on ....

    ciaJFC_PAwilliamlondonStrangeDaysfred1
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 29
    badmonk said:
    I still don’t understand why an established well defined 50+ year old technology can lead to these decisions.  We live in a time when cheap $20-30 pulse oximeters are readily available.  Obviously none of these manufacturers are paying royalties to Masimo.

    Of all the crazy patent claims why this one and not one of the previous patent fights??!
    Apple does the same thing. They are just as ruthless as anyone else in the world. 
    paisleydisco
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 29
    pwrmac said:
    Build or assemble more in the US 😄

    Nothing to do with a patent. but carry on ....

    @pwrmac If the Apple Watch was manufactured in the USA then this ruling would have no effect.  You can’t effectively ban imports to the USA if the product isn’t coming from outside the USA. The larger civil trial over the patent validity/infringement/damages is separate from the import ban.
    williamlondonwatto_cobrajas99
     2Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 12 of 29
    Consumers in countries and territories unaffected by the ITC ruling

    Which countries are unaffected?

    edited December 2023
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 29
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,684member
    Consumers in countries and territories unaffected by the ITC ruling

    Which countries are unaffected?

    All the countries not called “USA.”

    FTA: “Consumers in countries and territories unaffected by the ITC ruling won't feel the effects of the ban, with Apple Watch sales continuing outside of the United States as usual.
    Alex1Npaisleydiscowatto_cobrachadbagjas99elijahgfred1
     7Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 29
    apple are just playing hardball

    standard brinkmanship
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 29
    JFC_PAjfc_pa Posts: 955member
    pwrmac said:
    Build or assemble more in the US ߘ䦬t;/div>

    Nothing to do with a patent. but carry on ....

    It does in this instance since the filing was at an import jurisdiction agency. 

    ‘ This was followed up by a U.S. International Trade Commission filing in 2021.”


    Though, of course, that would just have meant shopping a different venue, but the results aren’t certain. 

    edited December 2023
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 29
    pwrmac said:
    Build or assemble more in the US 😄

    Nothing to do with a patent. but carry on ....

    @pwrmac If the Apple Watch was manufactured in the USA then this ruling would have no effect.  You can’t effectively ban imports to the USA if the product isn’t coming from outside the USA. The larger civil trial over the patent validity/infringement/damages is separate from the import ban.
    As of now, it’s impossible to manufacture in the US. It would take years to be able to start producing a product here. 
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 29
    It's hard to imagine that this would play out with Apple stopping sales of Apple Watch.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 29
    jfabula1 said:
    They do that all the time, Apple and Qualcomm, remember??…..$$$ talks and Apple have lots of them. Attorneys won here for sure. We consumers lost…..
    You’re completely misguided.  How is one company stealing another IP a “win for consumers”?!  Consumers only win when IP theft is curtailed/punished.
    edited December 2023
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingam
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 29
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,029member
    pwrmac said:
    Build or assemble more in the US 😄

    Nothing to do with a patent. but carry on ....

    Neither does the ban, directly.  It’s an Import Ban through an international trade agency.   The actual patent infringement case did NOT yield a verdict for Massimo.  So making the watch in the USA has everything to do with this case.  
    jas99
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 29
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,029member
    ralphie said:
    jfabula1 said:
    They do that all the time, Apple and Qualcomm, remember??…..$$$ talks and Apple have lots of them. Attorneys won here for sure. We consumers lost…..
    You’re completely misguided.  How is one company stealing another IP a “win for consumers”?!  Consumers only win when IP theft is curtailed/punished.
    Which has not been shown.  The actual patent infringement case was not decided and massimo did not win it.  
    StrangeDaysjas99MacProwatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.