carnegie

Claim 12 of 10,945,648

8. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a physiological parameter of a user, the user-worn device comprising:

Claim 28 of 10,912,502

28. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure an oxygen saturation of a user, the user-worn device comprising:

entropys said:

All articles I have read fail to specify exactly what patents Apple is supposed to have infringed. More interested in the controversy I suppose.

From what I can sort of gather, it is a general patent applying to blood oxygen sensors being on the wrist. Which tbh is a joke of a patent. Happy for more details in the next article please.

Masimo is a very large company. Whining about how much more Apple Pay’s its former staff is tragically sad, as Masimo clearly weren’t paying them what they were worth.

I'll post the verbiage of the 5 patent claims which the LEO and C&DO are based on. In order to infringe a patent claim, one must employ every element listed in that patent claim. Note that some of these claims are what are referred to as dependent claims. They include all of the elements of a previous numbered claim plus something additional. So, e.g., with the first claim I'll post - 22 of the 10,912,502 patent - there's only an enforceable violation because of the inclusion of the last item.

I'd also note that the original USITC ALJ (administrative law judge) only found enforceable violations as to the last 2 claims (24 and 30 of the 10,945,648 patent). The Commission effectively overruled that ALJ with regard to the first three.

Claim 22 of 10,0912,502

19. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure an oxygen saturation of a user, the user-worn device comprising:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

lmasanti said:

With all due respect to the US Judiciary system…

Epic vs. Apple was decided by a judge.
Epic vs. Google ws decided by a jury.

The jury makes its decision based in how well the parts ‘expose’ the facts.

At least for me… that is quite different —but legally correct— form of judgement.

What I'm unclear on is why in the Apple case it was decided it should be a bench trial, and with Google it was set up as a jury trial. Not that it would have made any difference since Google managed to piss off the judge.  

My thinking is that because with Apple, Epic could not use iOS as the relevant market to make the claim that Apple App Store is a monopoly (under current anti-trust laws) since one can not use a relevant market that only contains one brand. (Here .... Apple). If Apple had a monopoly with their App Store on iOS, that would make Mercedes having a monopoly with their 4-MATIC transmission, if the relevant market was just Mercedes autos. Disney would have a monopoly on who can open a concession stand, inside a Disneyland. Therefore, Epic first had to have a judge interpret (or re-interpret) current anti-trust laws to rule that the Apple App Store is a monopoly on iOS.  (Which the Judge didn't.) A jury can not make such a ruling. A jury can only rule whether laws as interpreted by the courts, are broken.

Here with Google, Epic was able to use Android OS as the relevant market. In which case, under current anti-trust laws, Google does have a monopoly with their Play Store. This was not hard to prove, as Google Play have over 85% of the market share on Android. Google offers Android OS as free open source software and they allow any mobile device maker to use, modify and customize "open source Android OS", as needed to run on their mobile devices. Therefore, that allows for dozens of app stores available on Android, that competes with Google Play.  It would be much harder, if possible at all, for Google to make the claim that all the different mobile devices running a "fork" of "open source Android OS", makes for a single Google brand and therefore the relevant market for the Google Play Store, can not just include Android OS. The jury did not rule that Google had a monopoly with their Google Play Store on Android. They only ruled that Google monopoly was an "illegal" monopoly because they were abusing it. It made no difference that Google claimed that they compete with the Apple App Store, as the Apple App Store is not part of the relevant market that Epic used to show that Google Play Store is a monopoly.

In both cases the determination of the relevant antitrust market was made after trial, so the different determinations wouldn't have been a reason why one case had a bench trial and one had a jury trial.

The judge in the Apple case could have determined that there was a relevant antitrust market based on a single brand - e.g., iOS app distribution. But after trial Judge Rogers determined that wasn't the relevant antitrust market. Such a determination is part findings of fact and part conclusions of law.

The jury in the Google case also could have determined that there was a relevant antitrust market based on a single brand, or it could have determined otherwise. After trial it determined that there were two such single-brand relevant antitrust markets. That isn't something the judge determined before trial. In theory he could have, but he didn't. It's possible that he will make such a determination after trial, i.e. that the evidence presented doesn't support such a determination.

gatorguy said:

lmasanti said:

With all due respect to the US Judiciary system…

Epic vs. Apple was decided by a judge.
Epic vs. Google ws decided by a jury.

The jury makes its decision based in how well the parts ‘expose’ the facts.

At least for me… that is quite different —but legally correct— form of judgement.

What I'm unclear on is why in the Apple case it was decided it should be a bench trial, and with Google it was set up as a jury trial. Not that it would have made any difference since Google managed to piss off the judge.  

Before I get into some of the nuance of how the respective cases developed, I'd say the simple answer to your question is... because in the Apple case Epic didn't want a jury trial and in the Google case Epic did, not initially but ultimately, want a jury trial.

Now, some of (but not all of) the nuance...

In Apple's case Epic didn't ask for a jury trial. And since it was only asking for equitable relief (e.g. an injunction preventing Apple from doing certain things) as opposed to legal relief (e.g. monetary damages), Apple wasn't entitled to a jury trial. Apple did make counterclaims on which it was entitled to (and asked for) a jury trial. But insisting on a jury would have meant two separate trials. So Apple ultimately agreed to one bench trial.

In Google's case Epic again didn't ask for a jury trial and again only asked for equitable relief. Google also made counterclaims on which it was entitled to (and asked for) a jury trial. But in that case something else happened, Epic's suit was consolidated with several other cases brought against Google with all the antitrust claims to be heard in a single trial. That effectively settled the issue of whether there would be a single jury trial, a single bench trial, or separate trials (one for Epic's antitrust claims and another for Google's counterclaims). Because the other plaintiffs had asked for legal (i.e. not just equitable) relief, those other plaintiffs and Google were entitled to a jury trial. Google was set to get what it wanted, a jury trial not just on its counterclaims but on all of the antitrust claims as well.

The cases remained on that track until Google eventually settled with all of the other (non-Epic) plaintiffs. By that point Epic and Google had switched positions; Epic wanted a jury trial and Google wanted a bench trial - perhaps, in part, because the judge had ordered that an adverse inference instruction be given to the jury in response to Google's deletion of chat records. Each side made its legal arguments and Epic (probably correctly) prevailed. Google didn't get to switch to a bench trial at the last minute.

So in the Apple case Epic got the bench trial it wanted and largely lost. Then in the Google case Epic didn't get the bench trial it initially wanted and largely won. Go figure.