Apple Watch import ban stay opposed by ITC

Jump to First Reply
AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in Apple Watch

A court filing from the International Trade Commission says that it opposes a stay on the Apple Watch import ban while appeals are made.

An Apple Watch with a navy blue fabric strap lies on a black surface; its digital crown has a red accent. The underside of the watch, with sensor array and charging coils, is visible.
Apple Watch Series 9



Masimo alleges that Apple has violated patents regarding blood oxygen detection in wearables. After a lengthy legal battle, Masimo won International Trade Commission (ITC) support for an import ban, which began on December 25 and subsequently was paused on December 27.

According to a report from Reuters, an ITC court filing with the U.S. Federal Circuit Court says it opposes a stay for the duration of appeals. The filing hasn't yet changed Apple's ability to sell Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models, but it could soon, pending Federal Circuit Court judgment.

Apple is attempting to circumvent the import ban via software, which could be approved by U.S. Customs by Friday, January 12. If approved, Masimo wouldn't be able to appeal Customs and would have to file a new case with the International Trade Commission to ban the modified Apple Watch models.

These appeals and battles will likely continue through 2024 until either Apple prevails, settles, or releases new hardware. The Apple Watch Series 10 is expected in September and would likely avoid violating Masimo patents altogether.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    macdaddy1944macdaddy1944 Posts: 6member
    This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits
    elijahgiOS_Guy80williamlondon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 2 of 16
    thttht Posts: 5,917member
    macdaddy1944 said:
    This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits
    It is in their own interest to never pay licensing fees unless forced to in the short term, and then design their way out of it in the next iteration. Every single company must play it this way. Masimo plays it this way. For some things, the lawyers say they can't win the patent fight for this or that feature, wherein there is no other way to do it, so they license. For others, it is cheaper to fight than to pay.

    You have to remember no technology, no data was "stolen" here. It's the nature of the US patent system to award patents that are as generalizable as possible, such that the patent is basically an idea that anybody can think of, and they leave it to courts to have the patents invalidated, modified, and to have the companies fight it out. For example, Apple can get out of violating a section of Masimo's patent by simply not using a chamfer, which is one of the claims the ITC say Apple is violating. There's always a "rainmaker" patent. That one, two, or three set of patents that are sufficiently general enough that it could apply to company's product, so these court cases arise.

    So, if you are Apple, or own a company that produces any kind of product, it really is in your best interest to always fight against patent license fees. Always. If you don't, you won't be able to afford to actually make a product. So if they can't get the patents invalidated, they will have to design around it.
    InspiredCoderadarthekatdewmeronndanoxkillroyStrangeDays
     5Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 16
    Kierkegaardenkierkegaarden Posts: 244member
    macdaddy1944 said:
    This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits
    Why would Apple pay Masimo if they don’t believe they infringed on their patents?  I don’t believe they set out to steal or infringe on someone else’s technology.  The ITC gave their opinion, other courts will give their opinion, and in the end we will know what will come from this.  People can believe what they want to believe, but to assume that there is legitimacy to an infringement claim based on a subjective opinion is foolish.
    radarthekatmacxpressronnwilliamlondondanoxkillroyStrangeDayswatto_cobra
     8Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 16
    InspiredCodeinspiredcode Posts: 406member
    Hopefully Apple patents their new design this time so Masimo doesn’t steal it again. This patent Apple violated came out after the series 6 and just blatantly copied Apple’s design.
    radarthekatwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 16
    InspiredCodeinspiredcode Posts: 406member
    You have to remember no technology, no data was "stolen" here. It's the nature of the US patent system to award patents that are as generalizable as possible, such that the patent is basically an idea that anybody can think of, and they leave it to courts to have the patents invalidated, modified, and to have the companies fight it out.
    Right. And if you want to read the patent it is very clear this is what is happening. Not only that, one of the two patents was Masimo patenting Apple’s design after they released it. I saw on one patent news site that observed this was a strange aspect that rarely happens. Apparently so trivial that Apple forgot to patent it themselves. The second patent was struck down as prior art, contested, then brought back in. It is also very trivial.
    edited January 2024
    dewmeronnwilliamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 6 of 16
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,732member
    The ITC needs to sit down and shut up until this matter is resolved through the courts, at least once, before taking this matter up.

    It has *deliberately* ignored that Apple would have WON the trial Masimo brought against them if not for one lone (and probably bribed) juror. IOW, Apple proved to the satisfaction of a jury that they did not infringe/copy/steal Masimo’s patents.

    The ITC has also *deliberately* ignored that nearly all of the patents Masimo claimed were harmed by Apple have been *invalidated.*

    I’m not saying Apple has never had patent issues, but this particular instance looks like sour grapes (and a quick cash-in, or at least that was the plan) by Masimo after Apple hired away some of their employees.
    williamlondondanoxkillroywatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 16
    ajmasajmas Posts: 604member
    I wonder how much of this is Apple being abusive and how much of this is down to Masimo being greedy with the terms of the licensing? Is anyone aware of these details?
    williamlondondamn_its_hotwatto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 16
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,472member

    Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo.

    I would be surprised if "an apple" could pay anybody, but I guess it pays you back in nutrients every time you eat one.  For like they say... An Apple a day keeps Masimo away.

     :D 
    edited January 2024
    darbus69watto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 16
    thttht Posts: 5,917member
    ajmas said:
    I wonder how much of this is Apple being abusive and how much of this is down to Masimo being greedy with the terms of the licensing? Is anyone aware of these details?
    Remember what we keep saying. This really doesn’t have anything to do with technology, the development of technology, trade secrets, theft or anything. 

    It’s a patent case, and the US ITC is abusing its authority thinking it is the Eastern District of Texas of the US District Court. 

    Apple has no interest with Masimo over licensing terms, aren’t talking to them whatsoever, and will not pay them a license fee for anything unless they are forced to. They will redesign the sensor to not infringe on the patents they are supposedly infringing. They will only interact with the court on this redesign, not Masimo. 

    Like any patent troll, Masimo wants everything. They want a nice fat licensing fee, ownership of any derivative patents the Apple Watch may have that their patents touch, and a component supply deal. That’s how they rolled with their prior litigation. 
    ronnwilliamlondondamn_its_hotwatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 16
    mikethemartianmikethemartian Posts: 1,632member
    They must have just gotten back from vacation.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 11 of 16
    dope_ahminedope_ahmine Posts: 270member
    jdw said:

    macdaddy1944 said: Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo.

    @jdw said:

    …nutrients eat time
     
    What nutrients eat time?
    :D 
    edited January 2024
    darbus69watto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 16
    dewmedewme Posts: 6,007member
    The International Trade Commission is simply trying to justify their continued existence. I respect their role, but Imo they probably picked the wrong case to get their point across because it’s apparently blowing up in their face rather badly. Not a good look.
    ronnkillroydamn_its_hotwatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 16
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,038member
    Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

    They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

    What am I missing?
    williamlondondanoxkillroydamn_its_hotwatto_cobra
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 16
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,146member
    larryjw said:
    Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

    They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

    What am I missing?
    A quick google search will reveal what you're missing:

    As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.




    williamlondonkillroydewme
     1Like 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 16
    thttht Posts: 5,917member
    flydog said:
    larryjw said:
    Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

    They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

    What am I missing?
    A quick google search will reveal what you're missing:

    As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.

    For larryjw, what is in front of the US Fed Court of Appeals is a decision on whether to prevent the ITC import ban on Apple Watches from taking effect. The ITC is part of the executive branch of the government. They are not a "Court". The US Fed Court of Appeals is part of the judicial part of the government. They in fact are a court, and can prevent decisions from the ITC from taking effect, just like any other decisions from entities in the executive or legislative branch of the government.

    Since the current decision is about ITC's import ban, and not about patents, the ITC is in effect the defendant in front of the court, and they will try to convince the court that their decision is correct, their import ban should take effect ASAP and last until the patent fight between Apple and Masimo winds its way through court. Apple is arguing the opposite.

    Another party in this mess is that Apple is submitting a software update to the blood oxygen measurement on the Watch that they think will not infringe on the patents the ITC is saying they are infringing. This determination of infringement or not seems to be dependent on US Customs, not the ITC. This decision comes on Jan 12. 

    Not sure how the ITC and US Customs decisions play out or how they interact. The US Fed Court of Appeals will be the final word on with the ITC import ban takes effect. The Masimo vs Apple patent and trade secrets fight is winding itself through the court process in the meanwhile.
    ronnwilliamlondonkillroydewmedamn_its_hotwatto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 16
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,213member
    tht said:
    flydog said:
    larryjw said:
    Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

    They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

    What am I missing?
    A quick google search will reveal what you're missing: 

    As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.

    The ITC is not any kind of judicial entity (quasi or otherwise); it is not like your (hypothetical) local cops coming to search you/your home without a warrant & the taking the entire family to jail & sentencing each of you to an arbitrary amount of time (I.e., open ended). 

    The cops never have the power to do anything close to this (not even here in the Eastern District of Texas Fed Court).

    The ITC is not the equivalent of the SS in the 3rd Riech, IMHO.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.