Apple Watch Is Cleared By the CBP of Infringing On the ECG Patent (cbp.gov) 20
Slashdot reader Kirschey writes: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined that the redesigned Apple Watch models do not violate AliveCor's electrocardiogram patents, allowing them to be imported. This decision comes before a consolidated hearing at the Federal Circuit Court regarding the same patents.
From the decision: We find that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has met its burden to show that certain redesigned wearable devices ("articles at issue") do not infringe one or more of claims 12, 13, and 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,941 ("the '941 Patent") and claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 ("the '731 Patent). Thus, CBP's position is that the articles at issue are not subject to the limited exclusion order that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission" or "ITC") issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266 ("the underlying investigation" or "the 1266 investigation"), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337").
From the decision: We find that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has met its burden to show that certain redesigned wearable devices ("articles at issue") do not infringe one or more of claims 12, 13, and 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,941 ("the '941 Patent") and claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 ("the '731 Patent). Thus, CBP's position is that the articles at issue are not subject to the limited exclusion order that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission" or "ITC") issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266 ("the underlying investigation" or "the 1266 investigation"), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337").
"C" is for Customs (Score:3)
The Border Patrol is making legal rulings on patent IP?
Note the 'C' in "CBP". And no, CBP did not make any ruling. As the summary notes, a Federal Circuit Court made the ruling. CBP merely testified that the evidence of non-infringement presented by Apple seems legit to them.
Re: "C" is for Customs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this redesign diminish the ECG functionality in any way?
I'd keep an eye on whether Apple still uses the phrase "medical grade".
Apple is a significant holding for nearly everyone (Score:2)
I wonder how many officials where bribed and how much it cost to make this happen.
No bribery necessary. Apple is a significant holding in nearly everyone's managed portfolio (IRA, 401k, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
The process (Score:1)
"Customs enforcement actions relating to patents are limited insofar as Customs
is without legal authority to determine patent infringement. Customs does,
however, enforce exclusion orders and seizure orders issued by the U.S.
International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/defa... [cbp.gov]
This is the point of the Chevron decision. One federal agency making its rules based on its interpretations of the rules of another federal agency, ad infinitum.
Fine if there is enough deference to the l
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad Apple found a way out. This was a stupid fight. They both operate in separate markets and there is little to no customer overlap.
That does not matter. The original patent holder was free to move into the market Apple occupies. Apple legally needed to either license the patent or to develop a workaround that did not infringe on the patent. The latter happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Patents don't take into account what market(s) a product occupies. Perhaps you're thinking of trademarks where markets do matter.
High five to the Apple engineers (Score:3)
Just a shout out to the engineers who worked to make this happen - you've earned your pay. Working around patents is something that has to be done sometimes, and in this case they cracked it. I haven't studied the '941 Patent, but there's a rule of thumb that if your claim is more that 3 fingers deep (when printed in the usual patent format), you can probably find a way around it. It's the short, succinct claims that scare the &%^$ out of you. I'm sure the attorneys did a lot too - getting this ruling is just magical.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent is pretty short and stupid. I expect they got around it because this patent itself looks like it was carefully written to fit in the cracks between a bunch of other dumb "but on a smartwatch" patents.
Re: (Score:2)