Moncada, Luis Emilio
Attorney at Law
US Federal Court maintains ban on Apple Watch imports
01/30/2024
US Federal Court maintains ban on Apple Watch imports.
The dispute initiated in 2020 by Masimo Corporation, a health technology and electronics company located in Irvine, California, against Apple Inc. has taken a new turn as a US Federal Court of Appeals recently denied Apple's request to suspend the ban on imports of the latest Apple Watch models from the US multinational.
Recapping on the history of this legal battle, it is worth mentioning that Masimo accused Apple some years ago of hiring its former employees to steal its patent-protected technology and trade secrets to incorporate them into Apple Watch monitoring functions, such as the pulse oximeter, and thus infringing its industrial property rights.
On its side, Apple has defended itself by denying Masimo's accusations, arguing that the lawsuit initiated by the health and electronics technology company is purely intended to advance itself and its product, at the expense of those of the transnational, and has even countered with a pair of counterclaims based on patent infringement.
However, the temporarily pause requested by Apple of the import ban on its products has not been successful, so it will be reinstated again and will be maintained during the time of the appeal against the decision issued by the International Trade Commission of the United States, which determined that Apple infringed Masimo's patents and prohibited the transnational company from importing its smartwatches that include blood oxygen monitoring technology, such as the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, among other recent models of the line.
The ruling issued by the Federal Court of Appeals in the United States shows that the US judicial system is undoubtedly solid and that its purpose is to protect industrial property, regardless of whether it is at the service of a transnational company that puts all its resources and means available for this purpose or whether it is at the service of a small or medium-sized agent, as in the case of Masimo Corporation, although there is still no final decision on the outcome of the conflict.
To the above, it should be added that these types of decisions, in addition to benefiting the US patent system and the actions available to defend alleged infringements, also provide protection to the final consumer since the people can be confident and trust the products they buy, such as in this case, products that integrate pulse oximetry technology.
The truth is that this dispute has not come to an end and may be far from it; however, we should not lose sight of the fact that this type of conflict, regardless of the outcome, contributes to the improvement of the industrial property system in the country in which it takes place and permeates other jurisdictions, as well as showing that the alleged misconduct of a dominant entity in the sector can be sanctioned; however, the final decision will be in the discretion of the US Courts.
Finally, not everything is lost for Apple and its smartwatch lovers, as the US Customs and Border Protection has allowed the importation of redesigned versions of the latest Apple Watches that do not integrate the pulse oximetry function.
In that sense, when it is intended to apply any technology that is not protected in a product, as in the smartwatches, I consider essential the professional assistance that can be provided in order to avoid this type of conflicts, through opinions of freedom to sale and even once it is received a claim arguing an infringement, through the implementation of alternative strategies such as an extrajudicial negotiation to solve the conflict in an amicable way.
On the other hand, in case you have the presumption of infringement of a protected invention, it is very relevant looking for technical and legal advice to enforce its rights, from the imposition of provisional measures in order to, for example, cease the sale of the infringing product, to the filing and prosecution of an administrative infringement action before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property and even the claim for damages.
Author: Luis Emilio Moncada, Attorney at Law
Becerril, Coca & Becerril.
Refs.:
1. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/17/tech/apple-watch-ban/index.html
2. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/18/tech/apple-halt-sales-apple-watches/index.html
4. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/01/09/apple-masimo-apple-watch-lawsuit/
7. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2023/12/26/apple-no-vende-nuevo-watch-trax/
Privacy Policy 2023 Becerril, Coca & Becerril