ITC calls Apple's arguments ‘weak and unconvincing’ as tech company seeks delay to import ban
Commission opposes tech giant’s motion for a stay | Cites weak arguments and a lack of merit | Masimo reinforces commission’s stance with its own response to stay bid.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) has opposed Apple's bid to overturn a decision made against Apple in its dispute with Masimo, labelling the tech giant's arguments as “weak and unconvincing”.
The ITC earlier denied Apple from delaying a ban it handed down against the import of some Apple Watches in the US. Apple filed an appeal against the ITC’s stay decision.
In its response, filed at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, January 10, 2024, the ITC claimed that Apple 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.”
According to the ITC, there was no legal error in the commission's final determination, and Apple was essentially asking the court to reevaluate the evidence supporting the commission's factual findings—which it found as being supported by substantial evidence.
In a separate response filed the same day, Masimo highlighted the ITC's prior determination that rejected Apple's attempt to secure a stay, emphasising that Apple failed to demonstrate any support for such a delay.
ITC: Apple’s arguments ‘meritless’
Apple's slim chances of success were evident by the various issues it needed to overcome in its appeal, including its arguments concerning the domestic industry and obviousness, said the ITC.
Arguing that “none of Apple’s arguments have merit”, the commission said Apple's claims that harm is not unquantifiable was speculative.
The ITC also dismissed Apple's reliance on an expected ruling from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding redesigned Apple Watches, stating that these arguments were misplaced.
The ITC argued that a favourable ruling from CBP would not impact Apple's alleged likelihood of success on the merits and, in fact, could undermine Apple's "irreparable harm" argument.
Masimo: Apple provided ‘no evidence of harm’
One of Masimo's key arguments in its own January 10 response, also backed by the ITC, was 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 health tech company questioned the need for Apple to sell watches with a blood-oxygen feature and argued that Apple's requested relief demonstrates its ability to sell its "flagship Watch products" under certain conditions.
Apple's public-interest arguments also come under scrutiny, with Masimo alleging that Apple failed to connect its arguments to the infringing feature.
Apple ignored evidence exposing that Apple’s pulse oximetry performs poorly and that the public would be “better off without it,”—supporting the ITC’s earlier conclusion that the public interest does not warrant a stay pending appeal, and in fact advises against it, argued Masimo.
Masimo’s four-year legal dispute rolls on
Masimo first made its allegation in 2020, when it accused Apple of trade secret theft infringing multiple patents related to the Apple Watch in a lawsuit filed with the US District Court for the Central District of California .
The ITC's investigation began August 18, 2021, following a complaint by Masimo.
The commission 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.
The ITC also issued a cease and desist order directed at the Cupertino, California-based company.
President Joe Biden was allowed a 60-day review period during which he had the authority to veto; however, no action was taken.
Relying on essentially the same arguments presented in its recent motion to stay, Apple moved the commission to stay its remedial orders pending appeal before the commission—which was denied by the ITC.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
