{"id":716,"date":"2024-07-20T03:27:04","date_gmt":"2024-07-20T03:27:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=716"},"modified":"2024-07-20T03:27:04","modified_gmt":"2024-07-20T03:27:04","slug":"to-do-away-with-watch-feature-ban-apple-leverages-supreme-courts-overruling-of-chrevon-doctrine-apple-v-itc-masimo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/to-do-away-with-watch-feature-ban-apple-leverages-supreme-courts-overruling-of-chrevon-doctrine-apple-v-itc-masimo\/","title":{"rendered":"To do away with Watch feature ban, Apple leverages Supreme Court’s overruling of Chrevon doctrine: Apple v. ITC & Masimo"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> One of the U.S. government agencies that may see itself affected very strongly by the Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright<\/em> decision (which did away with the decades-old Chevron<\/em> doctrine that used to give government agencies a significant level of deference as they interpret their governing statutes) is the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) (June 30, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). But observers have also, rightly, viewed the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC or just ITC), a trade agency with quasi-judicial powers, as a target of new challenges to its rulemaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s new:<\/strong> Within less than a month of the Loper Bright<\/em> ruling, Apple is already fielding that new standard in its Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC’s Apple Watch import ban over a pulse oxymetry feature. On Friday (July 19, 2024), Apple filed its reply brief to the ITC’s and patentee Masimo’s responsive briefs, and Loper Bright<\/em> featuers prominently. Apple’s appeal has multiple prongs, and the ITC’s rulemaking comes into play with respect to the agency’s reference to its own application of Section 337’s domestic industry requirement, which is the part Apple has briefed most extensively in both its opening brief (April 6, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>) and now its reply brief on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact:<\/strong> The Federal Circuit does not need Loper Bright<\/em> to decide this appeal in Apple’s favor, as its own recent Zircon <\/em>ruling also suggested a rather restrictive approach to the domestic industry requirement, as noted in the wider ramifications<\/em> paragraph of a May 8, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>. The effect may be more psychological and political as the references to Loper Bright<\/em> reminds the Federal Circuit how how important it is for the judiciary to rein in an agency’s overreach when it comes to the scope of its rights and responsibilities. In commercial terms, Masimo’s import ban has been a failure as Apple Watch sales do not appear to suffer from the temporary disablement of the pulse oximetry feature. As explained in a March 12, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>, there is every indication that Apple can just activate the feature later by means of a software update for any U.S. customers who bought an Apple Watch during the period in which the ITC’s limited exclusion order was in force, a successful appeal provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wider ramifications:<\/strong> The overreach in the Apple Watch case is particularly troubling as Masimo went to the ITC on the basis of drawings and argued partly on the basis of prototypes. The ITC’s job is to protect a domestic industry that actually exists, not to serve as a patent injunction court for other purposes. Apple and other companies are lobbying U.S. lawmakers about this issue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here’s Apple’s reply brief:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n