Apple fails to extend stay on Apple Watch ban
Federal Circuit rejects Apple's motion to extend the stay imposed by the ITC | Series 9 and Ultra 2 editions affected | Ban follows ITC’s findings that Apple infringed Masimo's patents related to blood-oxygen measurement tech.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied Apple’s motion for extending an interim stay on a ban issued by the International Trade Commission (ITC) for some versions of the Apple Watch in its dispute against Masimo.
The order, dated January 17, 2024, prevents Apple from selling its Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 devices that have the disputed blood-oxygen measuring tech embedded within, commencing on January 18 at 5:00pm E.T.
Apple had previously requested a decision from the Exclusion Order Enforcement branch (EOE) of US Customs and Border Protection on the applicability of the remedial orders to redesigned versions of its Apple watch products.
After Apple filed its motion for a stay with the Fed Circuit, the EOE branch concluded that the redesigned Apple products could be imported, on January 12, 2024, as they were not subject to the remedial orders.
The court's decision to deny the stay considered four key factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the movant, substantial injury to other interested parties, and the public interest.
Considering these factors and the recent ruling by the EOE Branch, the court decided to lift the interim stay and deny Apple's motion.
Apple, Masimo, and the ITC argue their case
The ITC issued a final determination on October 26, 2023, finding that Apple had infringed on Masimo’s patents related to blood-oxygen measurement technology.
The ITC ruled that the Apple Watch had integrated Masimo’s light-based pulse oximetry tech, protected by US patent numbers 10,912,502 and 10,945,648.
As a result, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order that prevents the device from being imported into the US—which Apple appealed.
The ITC opposed Apple’s motion to stay the ban, arguing Apple had failed to establish the essential factors required for granting a stay—likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
It said Apple’s arguments to the appellate court amount to “little more than an indisputably adjudicated infringer requesting permission to continue infringing the asserted patents.”
Masimo additionally argued that Apple had not presented any evidence of harm, let alone irreparable harm, to justify a stay.
In contrast, Masimo claimed it had submitted a detailed declaration from its founder and CEO, Joe Kiani, outlining the extensive damage Masimo would suffer if a stay was granted.
Masimo also argued that Apple's irreparable harm arguments are not directly related to the patented inventions in question.
The tech giant also submitted a brief to the Federal Circuit on January 15 alleging the ITC was responsible for “procedural impropriety”.
Apple claimed that the ITC’s new arguments were “meritless and only serve to highlight the commission’s lack of understanding of its own record”.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
