Apple says Masimo CEO’s attacks on its watch are ‘divorced from reality’
Tech company rebuts claims made by ITC and watch rival | Apple criticises ITC's “lack of understanding of its own record” | Masimo CEO Joe Kiani “lacks personal knowledge” says under-fire company.
Apple has contested the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) opposition to its motion to stay a ban against the import of some of its watches, as the dispute between the tech giant and medical tech company Masimo heats up.
Within its brief, submitted to the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit on January 15, 2024, Apple alleged that the ITC was responsible for a "procedural impropriety".
Apple had filed an appeal against the ITC’s stay decision—which both the commission and Masimo responded to in separate filings.
Apple claimed that the ITC’s new arguments submitted to the Federal Circuit on January 10, are “meritless and only serve to highlight the commission’s lack of understanding of its own record”.
Additionally, Apple said that Masimo’s response to the Federal Circuit, which included an “improper 7,500-word declaration from its CEO” should be disregarded as it is a “fundamentally unfair attempt to exceed the word limit”.
Apple said the declaration was never submitted to the commission, contains new alleged facts, and that Massimo CEO Joe Kiani “lacks personal knowledge for many statements”.
Further, Apple dismissed Masimo's statements about the value of its technology, claiming Kiani’s “attempts to denigrate Apple Watch” are “divorced from reality”.
Apple pointed to a series of legal losses Masimo had faced in courts over its patents related to blood oxygen measurement, adding that its own blood oxygen feature was praised by medical journals, and medical professionals and organisations.
The tech company questioned the motive behind the commission and Masimo’s request to ban the importation and sale of the Apple Watch, highlighting that Masimo’s W1 watch didn’t exist when the medtech company initially filed its complaint.
Apple added that Masimo’s watch wasn’t placed in a consumer channel and that the watch is sold only in minimal quantities—even years after the investigation began.
Apple defends itself
The brief presented the legal arguments put forward by Apple, focusing on the likelihood of its success in challenging Masimo's domestic industry claims and the validity of Masimo's patents.
Apple argued that Masimo failed to identify an “actual article” that practised the claims it asserted, emphasising that the computer-aided design drawings attached to Masimo's complaint did not show an actual, patent-practising article.
Apple further highlighted the errors it perceives in the commission's determination of validity, including misinterpretations of prior art and enablement issues.
The commission and Masimo suggested that Apple can still sell its redesigned product, the Apple Watch SE, but Apple argued that the SE lacks important life-saving features such as ECG—making it an inadequate substitute.
The pair argued that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm if a redesigned version of the Watch products is approved by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Apple pointed out that a redesign was approved, but the delay in approval meant Apple would suffer reputational harm by being unable to provide consumers with a fully-featured Apple Watch product.
Failure to prove essential factors
The ITC’s response to Apple’s appeal against its stay decision claimed that Apple failed to establish the essential factors required for granting a stay, including proving a likelihood of success in its case and that it had suffered 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”.
The ITC also dismissed Apple's reliance on the expected ruling from 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 challenged Apple's assertions of irreparable harm, arguing that Apple failed to provide evidence of harm, let alone irreparable harm.
It also questioned the necessity for Apple to sell watches with a blood-oxygen feature. Masimo suggested that Apple's requested relief demonstrates its ability to sell its flagship Watch products under certain conditions.
On January 12, the CBP decided a redesigned version of the Apple Watch can be imported following a confidential proceeding.
The decision, made by the exclusion order enforcement branch of the CBP was revealed in a notice sent to the Federal Circuit by Masimo.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
