Apple asks the U.S. Court of Appeal to overturn ITC import ban on certain Apple Watch models

Apple asks the U.S. Court of Appeal to overturn ITC import ban on certain Apple Watch models
Loading...

[ad_1]

Apple tried to circumvent the ruling by redesigning the health tool, but it was unsuccessful and at this stage, it would have to license the patents from Masimo, wait for the patents to expire in August 2028, or win an appeal in court. According to court documents (via AppleInsider), Apple made two big claims yesterday while attempting to prove to the court that the ITC’s original ruling against Apple was incorrect.

Apple claimed that Masimo’s patents were invalid and that Masimo, contrary to its testimony at the time the original case was heard back in 2021, was not planning to produce its own smartwatch with a pulse oximeter. In the court filing, Apple wrote, “The International Trade Commission exceeded its statutory authority by issuing an injunction in a case where the requisite domestic industry’ was non-existent.” Apple said that the ITC ruling was based on patent judgments that are “substantively defective” and some of these have been since invalidated. 

In the filing, Apple claims that less than a week after Apple unveiled the Apple Watch Series 6, Masimo “brushed off a twelve-year-old patent application and applied for new claims manifestly written to ensnare Apple’s new Watch. The result was the ’502 and ’648 patents at issue, which (as ITC Chairman Johanson explained in dissent) include “late added claims … added by amendment years after the original priority date” that “reach beyond any disclosure fairly described by the specification and figures.”

As for the claim by Masimo that it was about to produce its own smartwatch, Apple says that Masimo’s complaint was based on CAD drawings of a “Masimo Watch” and eventually Masimo admitted that no such device existed.

Apple’s hopes are expressed in the conclusion to its filing: “CONCLUSION. The Commission’s decision should be reversed or, at minimum, vacated and remanded.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *