I find Apple's argument for Laches an interesting one, as well as the finding that Masimo doesn't offer comparable products in the US and only the watches in the US are banned from import.
Are we really discussing substantive law or politics?
And, Biden certainly had the chance to make a different decision more in line with substantive law rather than politics.
But Masimo now has a watch themselves. My guess is they wanted to compete with Apple.
Masimo is a company that primarily markets to health institutions so must argue their products are professional grade. Now they're moving to the consumer market. Including now an AirPod type product. Apple doesn't make that claim for their oximeter and they're a consumer market company.
Clearly it's more about politics! It's interesting (but not surprising) reading the comments here. If the tables were turned you can bet most of the people here would be cheering the ITC for blocking the product that was competing with Apple's technology.
I totally agree. One of the reasons the ITC is biased towards expediency is because an infringing import from a country with a large manufacturing capacity could quickly overwhelm a domestic maker’s ability to defend themselves. The traditional court process could be drawn out to the point where the corrective action no longer matters because the market is saturated with the infringing product by the time protective measures are put in place. The ITC is intended to be a form of fast acting protection, at least compared to the USPTO and legal system.
Who’s right and who’s wrong will eventually be figured out or decided in court. But until it is, either or both parties could suffer negative consequences. In this case Masimo is not being materially damaged by Apple’s continued use of the patents in dispute. However, Apple is clearly being damaged.
In this specific case with the final outcome still in question it’s reasonable that Apple could be granted a stay on the import ban until the case is finally decided because Apple is the only party that would unequivocally suffer a financial loss if the final ruling goes is Apple’s favor. That’s a judgement call.
Regardless of which side you’re on I think it’s clear that the ITC is living up to what’s expected of them. If Apple is granted a longer stay because of the unique circumstances of this case, where Masimo is not impacted, such a decision should be made outside of the ITC’s role so they can continue to do their job without outside influence, I.e., politics.
It’s absolutely warranted that patent owners always protect their IP. If they don’t it becomes meaningless to own it. We don’t know anything about what’s on Maximo’s product roadmap. If the situation was reversed I’m sure Apple would do everything they could to protect what they believe is theirs, including having the ITC step in quickly to limit their potential damage.
Comments