Ban on Apple Watches With Pulse Oximeters Will Restart Jan. 18, CAFC Rules
Apple likely will stop selling watches that contain pulse oximeters, at least for now, after a Jan. 17 court order made clear that a stay on those watches’ Section 337 import ban would end the next day (Apple v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-1285).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 17 denied Apple’s request to extend the court’s stay of an International Trade Commission exclusion order on its imported watches, announcing the ban would go into effect at the end of Jan. 18. ITC’s embargo targets two of Apple’s “most popular” watch models, both of which contain pulse oximeters, or technology that reports on their users’ blood oxygen levels. The commission found the presence of those the oximeters infringed on a patent held by U.S. medical product company Masimo.
CAFC’s Jan. 17 order noted that Apple already has sought, and received, confirmation from CBP that redesigned versions of its watches that don't include the pulse oximeter technology won't be subject to the ITC’s ban. The order made no ruling on the merits of Apple’s overall case before the court, it added.
Apple had appealed the ITC’s ruling to the Federal Circuit on Dec. 23, three days before the ban was originally scheduled to go into effect (see 2312270064).
The tech giant argued its watches provide its wearers lifesaving safety features and said that Masimo “offers no reasonable substitute.” It also said Masimo’s release of an actual product under its patent came only after it filed its ITC complaint against Apple, whereas patent law requires such a complaint show existence of “a domestic industry ‘relating to the articles protected by the patent.’”
On Dec. 27, the Federal Circuit announced the interim stay on the ban.
The ITC argued against Apple’s motion to extend the stay, saying that Apple is unlikely to win its overall case at the Federal Circuit because it isn't raising any issues of law, only of fact.
“Ample direct and circumstantial evidence shows at least one ‘actual’ patent-practicing article existed before the filing of the complaint,” it said.
The commission also said that Masimo properly filed its patent, and that Apple couldn't show it would suffer any irreparable harm as a result of the ban -- Apple offers many other watches and product lines, and the company’s existence is not threatened by the ITC’s decision, it said.