If you were planning to give a loved one an Apple Watch for Christmas this year, I hope that you are not a last-minute shopper, because the newest versions of the beloved smart watch are being pulled from the Apple website on December 21st and from store shelves on December 24th. The reason? A patent dispute, of course. As it turns out, a recent ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC) affirmed that Apple had infringed on a medical technology company’s patent for the blood oxygen sensor on the back of the Apple Watch device.
The CEO of Masimo, the medical tech company in question, says that they tried to negotiate a license or other out-of-court resolution with Apple, but Apple leadership ignored their requests for conversation. The Masimo CEO, Joe Kiani, also claims that he had previously offered to sell Apple the chip responsible for the pulse oximeter readings, and that Apple refused. Masimo stated in court that instead, Apple opted to “poac[h] [Masimo’s] top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities […] that were patented by Masimo.”
It’s worth noting that Masimo’s chip is now approved by the FDA, while the technology used in the Apple Watch technology has not. This, according to Kiani, raises concerns about the accuracy of the Apple Watch readings.
The Biden administration now has sixty days to decide whether they want to overturn this ITC’s decision or let the ban stand. If they choose the latter, Apple can appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit once the presidential review period is over.
This is not the first time Apple has faced allegations of patent infringement. In 2013, they relied on the Obama administration to overturn a ban on certain models of the iPhone & iPad for infringing a Samsung-owned patent.
This case is interesting to me beyond just being about patents. It also sheds light on the fascinating intersection between politics, business, and IP law. This has been on my mind since learning about the Steamboat Willie (aka Mickey Mouse) patent coming up on its expiration date. Disney, in trying to prevent this patent from expiring in the past, lobbied the United States government twice to extend the limitation period on copyright, and as a result played a huge role in shaping the legal landscape of copyright in the United States, which in turn shaped ours here in Canada (see: the provision Canada agreed to on copyright terms in signing CUSMA).
This raises a lot of questions for me about who is really calling the shots, especially in the United States, when it comes to determining what intellectual property should look like, and who it should be protecting. We spoke a lot in class about the consumer protection aspects of trademarks, about the ways that copyright is meant to balance creator and public interests, and about how patents are meant to help move society’s technological progression forward. However, it is difficult to see how these public interests are being served when titans like Disney and Apple can rely on politicians and lawmakers to literally bend the law to serve them. This will be the second time that Apple has blatantly infringed on a patent (at least, according to the United States court), and could mark the second time that they are able to get away with it with very little consequence. (In this case, even though they are taking the Apple Watch off the shelves, the Watch can still be sold outside of US markets and through third party retailers, thus rendering the ban’s economic impact on Apple minimal). I say this because Apple seems quite confident that Biden will overturn the ruling, like Obama did in 2013, seeing as they have absolutely zero interest in negotiating with Masimo despite Masimo’s best attempts. This issue could have been sorted by a simple license – a cost that Apple surely could have made up with no trouble – but instead, Apple has opted to stay the legal route, stating their intention to appeal instead.
Whilst I can certainly see the value in intellectual property law in theory, it seems in practice it can often devolve into a David and Goliath battle between giant corporations and smaller companies or individuals who do not have the resources needed to lobby the government or engage in years of legal battle. I also can’t help but think here of the ruling from Alberta that decided that Ewoks had not been ripped off from a hopeful Albertan scriptwriter. While perhaps it’s true that Lucas never saw the script, I can’t help but notice a pattern.
Anyways, despite the ban, there is still hope for you late shoppers – the ruling only blocks Apple from selling the watch, so you can still get that nice gift for your mother at third party retailers. In the meantime, my Apple Watch is telling me it’s time to go study for my last exam!
LINKS TO SOURCES
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-1990-fight-over-ownership-of-the-ewoks-1.5431143
https://mashable.com/article/apple-watch-series-9-ultra-2-pauses-sales-patent-dispute
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/technology/apple-ban-watch-sales-patent-dispute.html
Communications Law