US Apple Watch import ban is on hold, for now

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited December 2023

Apple has won a temporary stay blocking the ITC sales and import ban on the Apple Watch in the United States, two days after the ban was implemented.

Apple Watch Series 9 (left) and Apple Watch Ultra (right)
Apple Watch Series 9 (left) and Apple Watch Ultra (right)



On December 25, an ITC order banned the import and sale of Apple Watch models that infringed on patents owned by Masimo, preventing their sale in the United States. On Wednesday, Apple managed to secure a reprieve.

In an appeals court win on December 27, Apple managed to convince the court to delay the import ban, effectively allowing the sale of the wearable devices in the United States once again.

The filing explains that Apple submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stay the International Trade Commission's limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders, as well as an interim stay for the orders pending a ruling on the motion to stay the orders.



Apple filed the motion on December 26, citing the potential "irreparable harm" to its business. December 26 was the earliest opportunity for Apple, as it had to wait until after the 60-day White House review window elapsed on December 25.

In response, the ITC opposed and "respectfully requests a five-day extension" from January 5, 2024 to January 10, 2024 so it can "file its response" to the motion for a stay pending appeal.

In its own filing, the Appeals Court orders that the interim stay motion is granted, stopping the enforcement of the import and sales ban until the court considers the motion for a stay pending appeal. While the interim stay is in effect, Apple still must comply with existing bond requirements from the ITC's orders.

The ITC, meanwhile, has been granted its five-day extension, and opposition to the motion to stay pending appeal is due by January 10. Replies in support are due by January 15.

In short, this means Apple has secured a temporary halt on the import and sales ban, and it will be in place until the Appeals Courts make a full ruling on the infringement case. As such a ruling could take weeks or months to be determined, this does buy Apple time to make more holiday season sales.

While the win is positive to Apple, it won't be an immediate change. U.S. Customs will have to process the court's order and re-allow imports into the country.

Despite a reprieve, there's no guarantee that Apple will restart direct Apple Watch sales straight away. It will have to quickly import a lot of stock from elsewhere, or sell direct from the supply chain in China, to make restarting worthwhile during the highly lucrative holiday sales period.

Third-party retailers who sell the Apple Watch remain unaffected, though they will have to depend on existing stock on hand for the moment.

Apple Watch Import Ban Temporary Stay by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    thttht Posts: 5,452member
    Hehe, there is definitely something structurally wrong with the ITC and how they execute their responsibilities. First time I read about an ITC case was the Broadcom vs Qualcomm case in 2007, where it issued an absolutely nutso set of decisions. It was in their power to ban basically all cellular and wireless communications devices (cell phones, pagers, routers, whathaveyou) as Broadcom and Qualcomm IP is in every single device with wireless networking in existence. They definitely are confusing their job of protecting US consumers versus protecting companies, and they definitely have favorites.

    In the AliveCor vs Apple patent case, the patent appeal board invalidated the patents that was asserted in the AliveCor vs Apple ITC case. About 2 weeks later, rather than just dismiss the case or put the case on pause, the ITC issued a decision that Apple violated AliveCor's invalidated patents, Apple Watches with the EKG features are banned from being imported, but that import action is stayed pending AliveCor's appeal of the invalidation of their patents. Absolutely nutty.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 12
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,069member
    Well...that escalated quickly. 

    Note the continuing bond requirement. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,931member
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    grandact73williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 12
    thttht Posts: 5,452member
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    It's lawyer-speak and irreparable harm means something different in court than it does to laypersons.

    I guess fundamentally, you can interpret it to mean that Apple is losing sales, revenue and income as they can't sell any Watch Series 9 and Ultras during the holiday shopping season. That's tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that can't be recovered because Apple can't go back in time to get those sales back. The gov't doesn't have to make an import ban decision now and can wait until decisions are final.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 12
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,931member
    tht said:
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    It's lawyer-speak and irreparable harm means something different in court than it does to laypersons.

    I guess fundamentally, you can interpret it to mean that Apple is losing sales, revenue and income as they can't sell any Watch Series 9 and Ultras during the holiday shopping season. That's tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that can't be recovered because Apple can't go back in time to get those sales back. The gov't doesn't have to make an import ban decision now and can wait until decisions are final.
    The same argument could be made for any patent enforcement, though so if ‘lost sales’ is the argument it essentially becomes meaningless. 
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 12
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,306member
    This was a wise ruling.

    Regardless of whether you’ve chosen a “side” in this debate between Apple and Masimo, and regardless of which side ultimately prevails, the ITC very seriously erred when it didn’t wait until the courts determined if Apple was guilty of patent infringement or not.

    It should have waited for at least one court verdict before moving to such a drastic “solution” for a situation that is disputed and unresolved. Outright bans like this are very rare, and the US ITC frankly did not have the evidence to justify such a drastic remedy.
    ibillwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 12
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 12
    XedXed Posts: 2,573member
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    One could also buy used, which means Apple gets nothing from the sale.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 12
    Xed said:
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    One could also buy used, which means Apple gets nothing from the sale.
    Fair point. Is anyone here monitoring the prices of used Apple Watches on eBay?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 12
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,862administrator
    Xed said:
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    One could also buy used, which means Apple gets nothing from the sale.
    Fair point. Is anyone here monitoring the prices of used Apple Watches on eBay?
    Yes. So far, no significant increase in pricing.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 12
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,931member
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    See my comment above - If that's considered a valid reason then how could any patent cases be enforced at all? If "irreparable harm" = Lost sales then any patent enforcement at all means irreparable harm and should therefore have an injunction. 

    It just doesn't work like that. If company A develops and patents a product or technology they have the right to use and profit from that technology. Allowing other companies to violate patents just because they want the profits negates the use of the patent system.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    thttht Posts: 5,452member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
    If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm.  Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back.  I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.  
    See my comment above - If that's considered a valid reason then how could any patent cases be enforced at all? If "irreparable harm" = Lost sales then any patent enforcement at all means irreparable harm and should therefore have an injunction. 

    It just doesn't work like that. If company A develops and patents a product or technology they have the right to use and profit from that technology. Allowing other companies to violate patents just because they want the profitsu negates the use of the patent system.
    Apple believes they don’t infringe the patents, and they need to prove to the Court that they don’t. Indeed, they basically won the court case it resulted in a mistrial due to a split decision. The court cases continues on whether they infringe or not, and whether the patents are valid or not. 

    If Apple does prove they don’t infringe, or invalidates the patents, then the ITC ban is causing Apple harm. Therefore, the court can stay the ITC ban and have Masimo’s damages go into bond. All parties can be made whole when final determinations are made. 

    The ITC is not a court. They are a US trade organization that can institute bans on imports. Their determination of patent infringement has no relation to the US court system that determines whether Apple infringes a patent or whether patents as valid. 
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.