In a landmark case that has garnered the attention of the technology industry, Apple is challenging the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) decision to ban the sale of its Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the United States due to alleged infringement of Masimo’s pulse oximetry patents. Apple’s arguments, as presented in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, revolve around Masimo’s standing to bring the complaint and the definition of the term “articles” as used in the relevant ITC statute.
Apple’s woes began when Masimo secured a victory at the ITC in late 2021. The ITC ruled in Masimo’s favor, concluding that Apple had violated the medical device-maker’s patents and that the infringement was causing harm to the domestic industry. The ITC’s opinion was based on Apple’s blood oxygen monitoring feature in the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2, which Masimo claimed infringed upon its patents.
Apple’s appeal to the Federal Circuit disputes the validity of the ITC’s findings. Apple maintains that Masimo did not have a bona fide product – a smartwatch – at the time of the complaint and that the ITC lacked jurisdiction as the term “articles” did not encompass the intangible CAD drawings Masimo submitted as evidence.
When Congress passed the law establishing the ITC, it granted the agency the power to investigate and remedy instances where imported “articles” violate intellectual property rights. However, the definition of “articles” has been a source of contention in numerous cases. In the ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that 3D models sent over the internet do not constitute “articles.” Masimo’s CAD drawings of the W1 smartwatch, which the ITC relied upon to find Apple in violation, were merely intangible, and as such, did not qualify as “articles” under the ITC statute.
Furthermore, Apple argues that Masimo did not demonstrate a domestic industry harmed by the importation and sale of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2. Masimo was primarily known for clinical pulse oximeters and had no smartwatches for sale in the United States when it filed the complaint against Apple. While Masimo eventually introduced the W1 smartwatch in 2022, Apple contends that the delay in product introduction undermines Masimo’s claim of harm to the domestic industry.
Apple’s appeal to the Federal Circuit raises significant questions concerning the bounds of the ITC’s jurisdiction with respect to intellectual property disputes. Apple asserts that Masimo’s CAD drawings did not qualify as “articles,” and that Masimo’s lack of a viable product and absence of established harm to the domestic industry weakened the ITC’s decision. The outcome of this case will provide crucial guidance on the scope of the ITC’s jurisdiction and its impact on innovation in the technology sector.
In order to reach a fair and well-reasoned conclusion, it is necessary to critically evaluate both parties’ arguments and provide an informed analysis on the implications of the ITC’s decision. As seasoned observers of the technology industry, we will continue to closely follow this case and provide updates on its progress.