ITC Pushes Back Against Apple’s Attempt to Lift Apple Watch Ban Amid Patent Infringement Dispute
Unlocking the Potential: Navigating the Future with Innovation and Collaboration
January 11, 2024: In the ongoing legal battle between tech giant Apple Inc. and medical device technology company Masimo, the International Trade Commission (ITC) has filed its response to Apple’s request to lift the ban on the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2.
The ban was imposed in October after the ITC ruled that these devices infringed on two patents held by Masimo, specifically related to their blood oxygen sensors. The ITC’s response, filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenges Apple’s arguments and emphasizes that the company is seeking permission to continue infringing on the asserted patents.
The legal saga took a turn last month when Apple was compelled to temporarily halt all sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the United States. However, the devices were reintroduced to the market after the US appeals court granted Apple’s request to pause the ban while awaiting a decision from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
One aspect of Apple’s strategy to lift the ban involves a software redesign of the blood oxygen feature on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Series 9. Apple has submitted this redesign to CBP, asserting that the changes avoid infringing on the Masimo patents. A decision from CBP on the acceptability of the redesign is scheduled to be announced on January 12.
Simultaneously, Apple has also sought to extend the stay on the ban throughout the entire appeals process. In its response filed on Wednesday, the ITC expressed strong opposition to this request. The ITC argued that Apple’s case lacks the necessary elements for granting such a stay, citing the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits and insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.
The ITC’s response states, “Apple presents a weak and unconvincing case to invoke the extraordinary remedy of a stay pending appeal under the Standard Havens factors. Its arguments amount to little more than an indisputably adjudicated infringer requesting permission to continue infringing the asserted patents.”
Regarding the likelihood of success, the ITC contended that there is no legal error in its final determination, and Apple is essentially asking the court to reevaluate the evidence supporting the ITC’s factual findings, which the ITC claims are supported by substantial evidence.
Equally critical are the ITC’s comments on Apple’s arguments about irreparable harm. The ITC disputes Apple’s claims, stating that Apple’s harm is speculative and not unquantifiable. The absence of a supporting affidavit from Apple further weakens its assertions about irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation.
The ITC’s response also dismisses Apple’s reliance on the expected ruling from CBP, arguing that a favorable ruling would not impact the alleged likelihood of success on the merits and would undermine Apple’s irreparable harm argument.
Despite the ITC filing its response, the legal drama is far from over. Other parties involved have until January 15 to submit their support or opposition to the ruling with the court. The US appeals court will then weigh the arguments and make a decision on whether to maintain the stay on the Apple Watch ban throughout the entire appeals process.
The situation remains precarious for Apple, as the outcome of both CBP’s decision on the software redesign and the appeals court ruling will determine whether the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 will be removed from the market once again. If CBP rejects Apple’s software changes and the appeals court denies the stay, Apple may face renewed challenges in complying with the ITC’s ban. As the legal proceedings unfold, stakeholders and consumers alike await the next chapter in this high-stakes dispute.
