{"id":151,"date":"2023-12-27T16:57:58","date_gmt":"2023-12-27T16:57:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=151"},"modified":"2023-12-27T16:57:58","modified_gmt":"2023-12-27T16:57:58","slug":"appeals-court-lifts-u-s-apple-watch-ban-for-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/appeals-court-lifts-u-s-apple-watch-ban-for-now\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court lifts U.S. Apple Watch ban (for now)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> A U.S. import and sales ban affecting certain Apple Watches entered into force yesterday, and Apple immediately filed an emergency motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking an interim stay (previous article on this dispute<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s new:<\/strong> The Federal Circuit has granted the stay in record time (within approximately 27 hours of Apple’s motion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact:<\/strong> While briefing on Apple’s motion for a stay during the entire appellate proceedings continues and the Federal Circuit might then allow the exclusion order to be enforced again, this is likely the decisive turning point in the dispute. ip fray<\/strong> considers it more likely than not that U.S. customs will approve (on January 12) the workaround presented by Apple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wider ramifications:<\/strong> Apple is setting an example for how to defend against the assertions of patents that may ultimately prove much less strong than a lot of people thought. For the ITC, the speed with which the Federal Circuit lifted the ban (after the ITC itself denied a stay and the Biden Administration declined to veto the ban<\/a>) must come as a shock. What happens in this high-profile case may have institutional implications.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This is the order:<\/p>\n\n\n