Apple to sell Apple Watch with blood oxygen detection removed to bypass ITC import ban

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,005member

    eightzero said:
    michelb76 said:
    So will they adjust the pricing?
    Countdown begins for tort attorneys to file a lawsuit asking for damages on behalf of all those “victims” who paid for blood oxygen monitoring but didn’t get it. Looking forward to my 21¢ check. Attorneys for their Bentleys. 
    That loses on summary judgment, as no one who has paid for the feature will lose it. Only those buying the watch in the US after the feature has been removed are potential plaintiffs, and they have suffered no damages. 
    Also, Apple clearly expects to win on appeal in a few months, at which point the feature will turn on for those who but a watch between now and then. If not dismissed outright, any suits filed between now and then will be put on ice and dismissed when rendered moot.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 37
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,759member
    Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

    They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

    I have lost respect for Apple over this.
    muthuk_vanalingamgrandact73Alex1N
  • Reply 23 of 37
    elijahg said:
    Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

    They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

    I have lost respect for Apple over this.
    Good artists copy, great artists steal.
    elijahgwilliamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 37
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,841member
    eriamjh said:
    Let’s just hope that Apple doesn’t repeat this of they ever get glucose monitoring working.  

    I would expect blood oxygen to return in Watch 10 or 11.  

    All of the existing medical companies will sue no matter what, the biggest mistake Apple made was hiring people from an existing company. Don't do it even it it saves you two years of R&D. The old line medical equipment companies won't go down without a fight.










    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 37
    When has this happened before where a company removed a feature to avoid paying for the technology? 
    They are removing the feature to avoid a sales ban while the appeals process plays out — big difference.
    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 37
    sandorsandor Posts: 658member


    AppleZulu said:
    eriamjh said:
    Let’s just hope that Apple doesn’t repeat this of they ever get glucose monitoring working.  

    I would expect blood oxygen to return in Watch 10 or 11.  
    It appears Apple expects to win the current appeal, and it’ll be available on all watches, including the 9s sold with the app currently disabled. 

    If Apple wins the appeal and Masimo is shown to be a tenacious patent troll, then it wouldn’t be about Apple ‘repeating this’ with glucose monitoring in the future. Other than by vigorously defending cases like the current one, Apple doesn’t control whether others will try to come after them with patent litigation in the future. 

    to be fair, Masimo is a legitimate medical device company that brought functional pulse-oximetry to hospitals almost 30 years ago, decreasing the need for arterial blood gas measurements & improving patient outcomes in NICUs and ICUs & hospitals in general. 

    Yes, there are other methods and algorithms, yes, Masimo has typically led the medical field since they introduced signal extraction technology pulse-ox in the mid '90s.

    If tech companies ever add OCT to their devices for monitoring your retinal health, i see similar patterns of issues coming from the likes of Zeiss and Heidelberg Engineering and other patent holding companies that have invested vast amounts of time and money into maturation of a concept on the medical side. 

    Not speaking to this case in particular, but tech companies seem to think they can flaunt rules and regulations & ignore the status quo (read: rules and regulations) that "traditional" companies have to follow (see NYC/London/others re: Uber/Lyft/AirBNB.... see Owlet selling a baby monitor as a quasi medical device, but with none of the actual testing or ability) 
    edited January 18 elijahgAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 37
    eightzero said:
    Now I'm rather curious how this is done. The watchOS knows the serial number of the watch, and thus when and where it was sold? 
    It or rather Apple’s servers know which shipment batch it was part of and when that batch cleared US customs. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 37
    elijahg said:
    Apple is being absurd. The amount they will lose in sales likely amounts to more than the amount they'd have to pay to license the patents especially if you include the legal fees. They'd rather jilt their own customers than pay a fee for what appears to be a fairly cut-and-dry case - and in the future potentially sell watches with sub-par blood oxygen detection because they don't want to pay. I wonder if the non-blood oxygen watches will have the feature switched back on if Apple pays in the future, or if Apple can come up with a software workaround?

    They rightfully got royally pissed off that Samsung ripped off the early iPhones so blatantly, but when they rip off someone else it's fine?

    I have lost respect for Apple over this.
    I otoh have gained a lot of respect for Apple. They have shown a willingness to fight for what they believe to be right instead of rolling over it order to make it easier. As to who ripped off who, that’s a question for the courts to decide. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 37
    danox said:
    eriamjh said:
    Let’s just hope that Apple doesn’t repeat this of they ever get glucose monitoring working.  

    I would expect blood oxygen to return in Watch 10 or 11.  

    All of the existing medical companies will sue no matter what, the biggest mistake Apple made was hiring people from an existing company. Don't do it even it it saves you two years of R&D. The old line medical equipment companies won't go down without a fight.



    Let them fight. If it works for Godzilla it should work for corporate giants too. 





    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 37
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,921member
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    AppleZulu said:
    techsavvy said:
    While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.
    Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.
    Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

    It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 
    muthuk_vanalingamAlex1Nsandor
  • Reply 31 of 37
    thttht Posts: 5,437member
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    It's spectroscopy. You can do it with 1 LED:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026269217305232
    Towards a novel single-LED pulse oximeter based on a multispectral sensor for IoT applications
    "we propose a novel approach combining a single led and a Buried Quad Junction photodetector, i.e. a multispectral sensor. With this fundamental modification of the pulse oximetry principle, we reduce the modifying effects introduced by the aforementioned sources of inaccuracy by using a single led. Results from in vivo measurements, show that the three tests of the proposed system's precision falls within the commercial tolerance of 4% SpO2%."

    I'm just some Apple fan doing a search and this paper from 2018 was the first hit. I assume the experts in this field already knew this going back 10 years before this paper was published and perhaps waiting on someone to do the work (or they did the work and was unpublished); and if they knew, that meant someone was already thinking about it 20 years before that, if not 40.

    There is a difference with current times in that you don't need precise theory or high S/N, you just need a lot of data. Feed the data in an ML model, find the driving parameters, then you have a trained model that does 95% of the job.

    Using ML models might be the only way to get blood glucose measurements through spectroscopy. Just waiting to see what they come up with.
    edited January 19 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 37
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,759member
    tht said:
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    It's spectroscopy. You can do it with 1 LED:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026269217305232
    Towards a novel single-LED pulse oximeter based on a multispectral sensor for IoT applications
    "we propose a novel approach combining a single led and a Buried Quad Junction photodetector, i.e. a multispectral sensor. With this fundamental modification of the pulse oximetry principle, we reduce the modifying effects introduced by the aforementioned sources of inaccuracy by using a single led. Results from in vivo measurements, show that the three tests of the proposed system's precision falls within the commercial tolerance of 4% SpO2%."

    I'm just some Apple fan doing a search and this paper from 2018 was the first hit. I assume the experts in this field already knew this going back 10 years before this paper was published and perhaps waiting on someone to do the work (or they did the work and was unpublished); and if they knew, that meant someone was already thinking about it 20 years before that, if not 40.

    There is a difference with current times in that you don't need precise theory or high S/N, you just need a lot of data. Feed the data in an ML model, find the driving parameters, then you have a trained model that does 95% of the job.

    Using ML models might be the only way to get blood glucose measurements through spectroscopy. Just waiting to see what they come up with.
    You can do it with IR only, but the bright green LED is much more accurate. IR is significantly lower power though.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 33 of 37
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,005member
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    AppleZulu said:
    techsavvy said:
    While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.
    Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.
    Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

    It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 
    You folks keep forgetting that the actual trial in this case ended with a hung jury, with only one of seven jurors believing Masimo. So Masimo went elsewhere to the ITC to try to block Apple there, the heck with a jury. Apple appealed the ITC ruling and expects to win. So they’ll sell watches with the feature in question disabled so they can keep shipping them from the factory. When they finally win the appeal of the ITC in a few months, they’ll turn the feature back on. 

    So rather than Apple as the bully, it appears from this and other past patent suits that Masimo is the bully that looks to their lawyers for an extra revenue stream. Apple is standing firm because paying off Masimo would cost a lot more in the long run than the figure on that one check. 
    thtAlex1Nronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 37
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,921member
    AppleZulu said:
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    AppleZulu said:
    techsavvy said:
    While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.
    Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.
    Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

    It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 
    You folks keep forgetting that the actual trial in this case ended with a hung jury, with only one of seven jurors believing Masimo. So Masimo went elsewhere to the ITC to try to block Apple there, the heck with a jury. Apple appealed the ITC ruling and expects to win. So they’ll sell watches with the feature in question disabled so they can keep shipping them from the factory. When they finally win the appeal of the ITC in a few months, they’ll turn the feature back on. 

    So rather than Apple as the bully, it appears from this and other past patent suits that Masimo is the bully that looks to their lawyers for an extra revenue stream. Apple is standing firm because paying off Masimo would cost a lot more in the long run than the figure on that one check. 
    And you keep forgetting that a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win. 
    muthuk_vanalingamsandor
  • Reply 35 of 37
    thttht Posts: 5,437member
    elijahg said:
    tht said:
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    It's spectroscopy. You can do it with 1 LED:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026269217305232
    Towards a novel single-LED pulse oximeter based on a multispectral sensor for IoT applications
    "we propose a novel approach combining a single led and a Buried Quad Junction photodetector, i.e. a multispectral sensor. With this fundamental modification of the pulse oximetry principle, we reduce the modifying effects introduced by the aforementioned sources of inaccuracy by using a single led. Results from in vivo measurements, show that the three tests of the proposed system's precision falls within the commercial tolerance of 4% SpO2%."

    I'm just some Apple fan doing a search and this paper from 2018 was the first hit. I assume the experts in this field already knew this going back 10 years before this paper was published and perhaps waiting on someone to do the work (or they did the work and was unpublished); and if they knew, that meant someone was already thinking about it 20 years before that, if not 40.

    There is a difference with current times in that you don't need precise theory or high S/N, you just need a lot of data. Feed the data in an ML model, find the driving parameters, then you have a trained model that does 95% of the job.

    Using ML models might be the only way to get blood glucose measurements through spectroscopy. Just waiting to see what they come up with.
    You can do it with IR only, but the bright green LED is much more accurate. IR is significantly lower power though.
    As I understand, two wavelengths are used with results ratioed to null out scattering errors. It isn't so much a particular IR to visible spectrum wavelength, other than ones that will maximize the S/N of the ratio. Though, any method can only get you so far. It also strikes me that they can use 1 photoreceptor. There are other ways to do it. If they have the data rate, they can perhaps sense the decay rate of the scattering with one light pulsing. The decay rate should be sensitive to the oxygen state hemoglobin.

    However, after looking at the Masimo's '648 and '502 filing history, you can't help but think there is shenanigans going on. These patents were filed in September of 2020. Filed, not approved. The Apple Watch Series 6 came out in September of 2020. These patents were granted in early 2021. I tried looking at the prior patents these two patents refer to, and they all refer to patents in the 2008-2009 timeframe, but they don't have the same claims from '648 and '502. In particular, a convex protrusion with a chamfer, with more than two emitters and receptors. The earlier patents had a different geometry. It's patents though. Finding them is just as difficult as reading them.

    That's pretty funny business there from Masimo. It's like they got a patent for the Apple Watch sensor design after the Apple Watch shipped. Hence, I think Apple is never going to work with Masimo.
    AppleZulu
  • Reply 36 of 37
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,005member
    MplsP said:
    AppleZulu said:
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    AppleZulu said:
    techsavvy said:
    While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.
    Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.
    Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

    It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 
    You folks keep forgetting that the actual trial in this case ended with a hung jury, with only one of seven jurors believing Masimo. So Masimo went elsewhere to the ITC to try to block Apple there, the heck with a jury. Apple appealed the ITC ruling and expects to win. So they’ll sell watches with the feature in question disabled so they can keep shipping them from the factory. When they finally win the appeal of the ITC in a few months, they’ll turn the feature back on. 

    So rather than Apple as the bully, it appears from this and other past patent suits that Masimo is the bully that looks to their lawyers for an extra revenue stream. Apple is standing firm because paying off Masimo would cost a lot more in the long run than the figure on that one check. 
    And you keep forgetting that a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win. 
    It actually means the opposite, that Masimo didn’t win. In that case, the judge threw out five of Masimo’s ten infringement claims, and the other five went to a jury trial, where Masimo was required to convince a unanimous jury that Apple had infringed on its patents in the remaining five claims. In that trial, six of seven jurors found that Apple had not infringed, and one sided with Masimo and would not budge. Unanimity is required to make a ruling, so the jury was hung and the judge declared a mistrial. 

    A mistrial means Masimo could’ve requested a retrial, but the fact that they all but lost the first attempt makes that an incredibly poor bet. So they appear to have abandoned that route, lest they spend more money just to get a unanimous jury voiding their claims. 

    Now they’ve leaned into the ITC claim, blocking Apple from importing the devices from the factories into the United States. They don’t appear to be making such claims in other countries. That seems odd. 

    Apple has appealed the ITC ruling and in the meantime turned off the app in question on devices currently being imported. Given Masimo’s weak position after the jury trial (and presumably their lack of commitment to seek a retrial) Apple appears to expect to win this appeal, at which point they should be done with Masimo.  

    So no, it is not correct to say “a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win.”
    edited January 20 watto_cobraronn
  • Reply 37 of 37
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,078member
    AppleZulu said:
    MplsP said:
    AppleZulu said:
    MplsP said:
    Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

    tht said:
    And so it goes. 

    Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

    My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 
    Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

    AppleZulu said:
    techsavvy said:
    While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.
    Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.
    Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

    It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 
    You folks keep forgetting that the actual trial in this case ended with a hung jury, with only one of seven jurors believing Masimo. So Masimo went elsewhere to the ITC to try to block Apple there, the heck with a jury. Apple appealed the ITC ruling and expects to win. So they’ll sell watches with the feature in question disabled so they can keep shipping them from the factory. When they finally win the appeal of the ITC in a few months, they’ll turn the feature back on. 

    So rather than Apple as the bully, it appears from this and other past patent suits that Masimo is the bully that looks to their lawyers for an extra revenue stream. Apple is standing firm because paying off Masimo would cost a lot more in the long run than the figure on that one check. 
    And you keep forgetting that a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win. 
    It actually means the opposite, that Masimo didn’t win. In that case, the judge threw out five of Masimo’s ten infringement claims, and the other five went to a jury trial, where Masimo was required to convince a unanimous jury that Apple had infringed on its patents in the remaining five claims. In that trial, six of seven jurors found that Apple had not infringed, and one sided with Masimo and would not budge. Unanimity is required to make a ruling, so the jury was hung and the judge declared a mistrial. 

    A mistrial means Masimo could’ve requested a retrial, but the fact that they all but lost the first attempt makes that an incredibly poor bet. So they appear to have abandoned that route, lest they spend more money just to get a unanimous jury voiding their claims. 

    Now they’ve leaned into the ITC claim, blocking Apple from importing the devices from the factories into the United States. They don’t appear to be making such claims in other countries. That seems odd. 

    Apple has appealed the ITC ruling and in the meantime turned off the app in question on devices currently being imported. Given Masimo’s weak position after the jury trial (and presumably their lack of commitment to seek a retrial) Apple appears to expect to win this appeal, at which point they should be done with Masimo.  

    So no, it is not correct to say “a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win.”
    I've seen a number of posts about the district court case you're referring to (Masimo v Apple, 8:20-cv-00048) which don't accurately reflect what's happened thus far in that case. So, for better clarity...

    I'd begin by noting that there's no overlap between the patents at issue in that case and the patents at issue in the ITC investigation discussed in this thread. There were 12 patents asserted in the district court complaint and 5 in the ITC complaint, but they were all different.

    That said, neither the judge nor the jury in the district court case ruled on the validity or infringement of the 12 patents-in-suit. Early on in the case Apple asked the court to stay consideration of the patent infringement claims because it had filed inter partes review petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relating to every one of those 12 patents. The court granted that request and since then the district court case hasn't been considering the patent infringement claims.

    That case has instead been about Masimo's claims that (1) Apple misappropriated certain trade secrets, (2) certain Masimo (or Cercacor) employees collaborated in the invention of certain patents now assigned to Apple and should thus be added as inventors of those patents, and (3) Masimo (or Cercacor) should be assigned at least co-ownership of those patents and certain others based on assignment agreements they have with their employees (some of which left to work for Apple). The jury couldn't come to a unanimous decision with regard to the trade secret claims, with the vote being 6-1 in Apple's favor as you suggest, thus a mistrial was declared.

    Since then the parties have been proceeding toward a new trial with the target start date, as of the last order I've read from the judge, being October 31, 2024. I've seen no indication that Masimo doesn't want a retrial. It could have, e.g., asked to have the case dismissed if it didn't want to go through another trial.

    With regard to the 12 patents asserted in the case, the PTAB in several waves of decisions eventually invalidated all of the asserted claims from all but 2 of those patents. It declined to invalidate the asserted claims from the other 2 patents. Further, the Federal Circuit eventually upheld all of those PTAB decisions (save one small, not-relevant-here aspect of one of the decisions). The Federal Circuit rulings which upheld the 2 PTAB decisions not to invalidate certain patent claims came just a couple weeks ago. So, I suppose, it's possible that Masimo might be able to get its infringement claims relating to 2 patents into the upcoming trial.

    Apple also has its own district court case in which it accuses Masimo of infringing certain Apple patents. So we're probably a ways from Apple and Masimo being done with each other.
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.