Apple Watch ban update: More potentially negative news for Apple has surfaced in the next installment of the Apple Watch ban drama. Invoking the unusual remedy of a stay-pending appeal under the Standard Havens criteria, Apple makes a weak and unpersuasive case. Its arguments are little more than an unquestionably found-infringing party asking for authorization to carry on with the claimed patent infringement. Apple primarily fails to show irreparable harm and the possibility of succession, which are the two most crucial elements in issuing a stay.
Commission on International Trade
In a letter to the U.S. Appeals Court, the U.S. International Trade Commission—which imposed the sales ban on the Apple Watch 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2—argues that the two smartwatches shouldn’t be allowed to stay off the market while Apple files an appeal of the ITC’s initial ruling.
The PDF of the response that MacRumors provided shows that the ITC effectively asks for permission to carry on with its alleged patent infringement against Apple.
This remark won’t instantly affect anything because the U.S. Appeals Court set January 15 as the deadline for responses to Apple’s motion. But if the Court rules in favor of the ITC, a legitimate Apple Watch ban might be reinstated.
Xreal introduces new AR glasses, the Air 2 Ultra, to compete with Apple’s Vision Pro
The update
The ITC declared back in October 2023 that Apple had violated blood oxygen monitoring patents held by the Californian business Masimo ever since the Apple Watch 6 series (but not the Apple Watch SE) was introduced in 2020. Consequently, in the final days of December, the Apple Watch 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 were momentarily removed off both physical and online retailer shelves. However, following Apple’s appeal of the decision, the U.S. Appeals Court permitted Apple to temporarily reintroduce the watches into circulation.
It appears that Apple plans to release a software update for its smartwatches that will turn off the blood oxygen sensor. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency will decide (by January 12) if this is sufficient to prevent the smartwatches from violating the relevant patents or if, as Masimo has stated, a complete hardware redesign is required.
Users who intended to use an Apple Watch to kickstart their New Year’s resolution to get fitter would undoubtedly find it inconvenient if there was yet another restriction on the device’s sales. But to guarantee that businesses receive fair compensation for their inventions, patents must be legally protected. So, Apple shouldn’t be permitted to benefit from this if it did in fact violate the patents.
How to pair Apple Watch to a new iPhone?
Apple doesn’t appear to care that Masimo is still holding out hope that they may reach a licensing arrangement and financial compensation. Before this drama comes to an end, we’ll have to wait and see how Apple’s appeal plays out.
