AliveCor’s patent battle against Apple could reach a critical point next week when a U.S. International Trade Commission judge is set to rule in a case that may determine whether some Apple watches will face an import ban.
The two companies have been embroiled in a legal skirmish since 2021, with AliveCor alleging that Apple violated its patents for a wearable system to detect arrhythmias. Apple recently filed its own patent lawsuit against the company, writing in a complaint that it wanted to “set the record straight” as to who invented the technology.
The ITC decision was originally slated for Monday, but was postponed to Dec. 20. Apple had filed an emergency motion with the ITC after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that 30 of AliveCor’s claims were unpatentable.
At the same time, Masimo, an Irvine, Calif-based maker of pulse oximeters and other monitoring and medical technologies, is involved in a similar battle with Apple, accusing it of patent infringement and violating federal competition laws, after Apple accused Masimo of copying the tech giant’s technology. Masimo also is waiting for a ruling on banning imports of the Apple Watch that infringe on technology Masimo claims as its own.
Apple applauded the PTAB decision, saying its health, wellness and safety features were independently developed and incorporated into Apple Watch. The ruling was a blow ahead of the expected final ruling by the ITC, although AliveCor’s chief strategy officer, Sanjay Voleti, said it should not affect the commission’s decision.
“We’re deeply disappointed and we strongly disagree with the decision by the PTAB, and we will be appealing it,” Voleti said in an interview.
Despite the setback, Voleti is “cautiously optimistic” that the ITC will rule in AliveCor’s favor based on an initial determination in June that found Apple infringed two of AliveCor’s patents.
“The thing I want to also highlight is that the PTAB and the ITC are two separate independent bodies. They make their decisions independently,” he added.
For its part, Apple in a statement on Dec. 9, said “we appreciate the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s careful consideration of these patents, which were found to be invalid. Apple’s teams work tirelessly to create products and services that empower users, including the industry-leading health, wellness and safety features we independently developed and incorporated into Apple Watch. Today’s decision confirms that the patents AliveCor asserted in the ITC against Apple are invalid.”
Apple didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the Masimo case.
Mountain View, Calif.-based AliveCor makes consumer devices that use ECG data to detect arrhythmias and other heart conditions. The firm was founded in 2011 by Dr. Dave Albert, who is currently chief medical officer.
AliveCor stopped selling its KardiaBand product for Apple Watch in 2019.
Courtesy of AliveCor
The firm started by making products that attach to the back of a smartphone to detect abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. In 2017, it developed the KardiaBand, an ECG wristband that could be used with the Apple Watch.
Two years later, AliveCor pulled the product from the market after Apple received FDA clearance for its own built-in ECG feature. Now, AliveCor makes small hand-held devices that can pair with a smartphone, which it says can detect up to six different arrhythmias.
The company also has a separate, anti-competition case against Apple, after an update to WatchOS that prevents AliveCor and other developers from accessing information needed for the algorithm to function properly, Voleti said.
“It seems like it’s driven by Apple seeking to create a walled garden that eliminates choice,” Voleti said. “This is basically anti-competitive bullying action, that’s what the core of the lawsuit is.”
AliveCor said the PTAB decision would not affect its ability to sell any of its current products. And even if it prevails in its case with the ITC, there are still other consumer companies that sell consumer-facing devices that can analyze ECG data. Voleti said the case isn’t just about patents.
“The key thing here is through Apple, we have an opportunity to actually reach a lot more customers and provide this great service and capability to a lot more folks with better AI and better performing products and services,” the chief strategy officer said. “What we’re asking for is a level playing field where we can actually compete and bring things to a full set of folks that can benefit from them.”
