Apple appeals Apple Watch ban, citing 'irreparable harm' to its business
Apple has filed an "emergency motion" for an appeal against the US import ban on the Apple Watch, and pressed for an interim stay on the ruling.
Apple Watch Ultra
Following the White House's decision not to veto the United States International Trade Commission's (USITC) ban on importing Apple Watch to the US, Apple has now filed an appeal that claims the ban will cause it to "suffer irreparable harm if the Orders are left in place." It wants the ban lifted, and separately also asks that it be dropped while the appeal is being considered.
It's an "emergency motion for an immediate interim stay," because the USITC "has stated it will require over two weeks to respond."
"Importantly," continues the filing, "the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is scheduled to decide on January 12, 2024 whether a redesigned version of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2... falls outside the scope of the Commission's remedial orders."
"At a minimum," says Apple, "the Court should grant a stay long enough for Customs to make this decision."
The ban was imposed by the USITC as a result of the case brought against Apple by Masimo, which claims Apple effectively stole its pulse oximetry technology.
In the public version of the appeal filing (see below), there are two redacted segments regarding a redesign. While that redaction means there are no details about a redesign, it does mean that Apple has implemented some form of update that it believes mean it no longer uses the patents and technology at the center of the dispute.
Apple's argument for lifting the ban
In terms of legal issues, Apple's filing argues both that there is precedent for such an interim lifting of the ban, and that there is specific reason to allow it.
"Barring the accused Apple Watches from importation and sale ill-serves the public," says Apple, "as it deprives consumers of a product with potentially lifesaving features, researchers of a critical tool for medical research, and the broader economy of a device that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and fosters innovation."
"Finally, Masimo will not suffer any cognizable harm, as it does not sell a competing product in the United States in any meaningful quantities (if at all)," continues Apple's filing. "Tellingly, the Commission's decision acknowledged that Masimo would not suffer any significant monetary harm from a stay."
Apple has also commented to Reuters about the filing, saying it is working to resume sales of the Apple Watch.
"We strongly disagree with the USITC decision and resulting exclusion order," a spokesperson said in a statement, "and are taking all measures to return Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to customers in the U.S. as soon as possible."
Apple Watch Masimo Itc Appeal by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
The latter resulted in a mistrial when the jury trial resulted in a 6-1 jury vote in favor of Apple when it needed to be unanimous and the patent appeals trials seems to be waiting the ITC trial to wind down before it starts up again.
Obviously if Apple DID, then all you say is true and I’d have no argument with you.
I suspect series 9 & Ultra Sales have gone through the roof already, against all the trends, so Apple laughing all the way to the bank 🤣
Most of the comments here are quite pathetic and ill informed.
Massimo is playing or possibly even paying behind the scenes?
It wouldn't be the first time a juror (or a government official) got bough off in a trial that needed a unanimous verdict. It only cost John Gotti $60k
All I would add is that it wouldn't be the first or the last time a juror got bought off, it only cost John Gotti $60k back in the 90's.
I would also strongly suggest FBI start a thorough investigation into the people at ITC who made this decision, especially check their bank accounts!
The ban is totally illegal and without merit.
I strongly suspect we'll see record Apple Watch sales when this quarter ends 🤣
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.
All I can say is that if Apple blatantly copied Masimo’s patent in plain site of everything and everyone surrounding this case it would be one of the biggest bonehead moves of all time. There is a clear breadcrumb trail back to the first time Apple and Masimo struck up a conversation around the technology involved, if in fact they did. Most companies with IP to protect don’t go blathering about their trade secrets with anyone without an NDA or similar protection in place.
As far as bringing in Masimo employees, it’s not unusual for professionals in specific markets and problem domains to seek better employment opportunities with the competitors of their current employer. In many cases that’s the only way to move up the food chain. Very common practice. If Masimo was concerned about Apple “poaching” their employees to gain insider knowledge of their IP they would have dispatched a Seal Team of lawyers after Apple before the employee even had an Apple employee badge.
On the Apple side, before any product goes to market it undergoes an extensive review, as a minimum, by the company’s internal legal team. If there there is any IP claims to be made on the to be released product or its constituent components all of necessary disclosures are put in place before the product hits the market to ensure that opportunities for IP collection aren’t jeopardized. Part of these processes includes an extensive search for prior art and potential infringement. Companies like Apple have teams of both lawyers and seasoned professional technologists as part of this process, so it’s not a case of a blind squirrel searching for a nut. As a publicly traded company they also have paper trails documenting all steps along the way.
I have a hard time believing that Apple would commit a brash act of outright patent violation in clear sight with everyone, especially Masimo, watching their every move. There’s no sneaky pilfering of cookies from the cookie jar when mom is standing right next to the cookie jar watching you. That would be plain stupid. Smack to the head. But is it possible that Apple could be that stupid? Of course it’s possible, but it’s highly unlikely given what’s at stake. Then again, I’ve always gotten the little white Apple stickers in the box, so I’m more inclined to trust Apple, even though I’ve had more than one Apple product fail me in the most miserable way. They’re not perfect, far from it, but are they really that stupid? I hope not.
Which is irrelevant in the current discussion - the patents are still validDoesn't have a product using pulse oximetry? https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/
I work in healthcare - Massimo is a major player in pulse oximetry and part of their business is licensing their technology to other companies that make integrated monitors.
Trade bans are one tool that the ITC commission has. They chose to use it in this case. Your hypothetical excuses aside, this isn't about luring employees away. The ban is about patent infringement. Apple is free to fight but they have to play by the rules like everyone else. At the current time the ITO has ruled they can't import Apple Watches. How they proceed from here is up to them.
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.