Davids (AliveCor, Masimo) v. Goliath (Apple): the patent infringement game *not* over; Masimo’s messy proxy fight with Politan (updated)

April 4, 2024 | by

Apple’s legal department certainly hasn’t been maxing their relaxing this year, what with DOJ and pesky upstarts taking them to court. The big one keeping them busy is the US Department of Justice (DOJ) giving Apple a dose of its own medicine in filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets [TTA 22 Mar]. Apple also continues to fight antitrust and intellectual property (patent) infringement in Federal district courts, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the International Trade Commission (ITC), brought by ECG reader AliveCor and Masimo‘s pulse oximetry reader and software. Masimo succeeded in disrupting Apple’s sales of the Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 right at the Christmas holiday sales season [TTA 28 Dec 23], forcing Apple to disable the pulse ox feature [TTA 18 Jan] in future imports in one of Apple’s few losses.

The DOJ lawsuit does not address Apple’s copycat activities against either AliveCor or Masimo. Both companies worked with Apple.  AliveCor integrated its early KardiaBand (2016) with early Apple Watches, only to have cardiac readings integrated into the Apple Watch two years later (2018). Masimo and Apple were in mid-stages of a 2021 partnership that Apple broke off, but Masimo then accused Apple of hiring its employees working on the project [TTA 27 Oct 23].

AliveCor hasn’t been quite so successful as Masimo in challenging Apple, but it has been fighting Apple as a David v Goliath on multiple fronts for years. In February, AliveCor lost a round in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on the heart rate algorithm changes Apple made in 2018 that made their SmartRhythm app provided to Apple non-functional. That decision reportedly is still under seal. However, AliveCor has multiple Federal patent infringement lawsuits going against Apple. The differing rulings of the PTAB against and an ITC ruling finding for AliveCor went to the Federal circuit court level. According to CEO Priya Abani in an excellent MedCityNews article, AliveCor expects to see action on this by summer. Abani also scored Apple’s annoying (understatement) habit of IP infringement and broken partnerships. “Apple’s vast resources allow them to squash small innovators,” she said. “They have more lobbyists and lawyers on their payroll than we have employees.”

AliveCor and Masimo aren’t the only ones battling Apple. In the MedCityNews article, NYU Langone cardiologist Joseph Wiesel has sued Apple on patent infringement on his atrial fibrillation app (2021), also involving the USPTO, an action that is wending its way through courts now. While this Editor has long been mystified by Apple’s continued combativeness against small innovative companies when certainly it would be cheaper (and more respectful) to pay a license or settlement, FTA in MedCityNews citing Dr. Wiesel’s attorney Andrew Bochner, “Apple is known among the legal community to have a certain modus operandi: they do “not entertain any sort of real settlement discussions” and instead battle “tooth and nail” in order to wear out their rivals with fewer resources.” The shocker here is that Apple, in this case, stated to Bochner that it filed “roughly 10%” of the USPTO’s total post-grant proceedings, which take place after a patent has been granted and generally challenge a patent’s validity. One wonders whether DOJ will even take note of this anticompetitive activity involving Apple Watches in its blunderbuss action on iPhones and the US smartphone market.

Masimo itself is being roiled by a shareholder proxy fight over who controls the company. Masimo is a publicly-traded (Nasdaq) electronics company that is primarily focused on health devices, including smartwatches, and data software monitoring for the clinical and consumer markets, notably pulse oximetry.

  • Last week, activist investor group Politan Capital Management accused CEO Joe Kiani and others of mismanagement, announcing the nomination of two more independent candidates from Politan for the board of directors. Politan already has two seats on the BOD and a win here would give Politan majority control.
  • The bone being picked is Masimo’s February 2022 $1 billion acquisition of consumer audio brand Sound United (Polk, Marantz, Denon, and others) which didn’t mesh well with their health tech business. This drove down the share price from that time, with Politan subsequently swooping in and picking up shares, successfully winning two BOD seats in 2023.
  • Masimo announced on 22 March that their consumer ‘hearables’ division would be spun off.
  • Politan’s response on 26 March was to object to the spinoff on governance grounds, nominate the additional directors, and heavily criticize CEO Kiani’s ‘control and influence’. Strata-gee 26 March

Yesterday’s follow-up is that Kiani and Masimo are rebutting all of Politan’s claims and more. Strata-gee 2 April, Masimo release 1 April, MedTechDive

This Editor notes that products in their personal monitoring line combine both audio and vital signs monitoring–the (out of stock) Stork, that appears with its baby sock to be directly competitive with Owlet’s Dream Sock.

This will all play out at the yet-to-be-announced 2024 Shareholders Meeting. This Editor notes that Politan picks its battles and is rarely defeated. Our Readers may recall that Politan swooped in on Centene Corporation in late 2021, and in short order ousted long-time directors, added new friendly ones, shook up management and forcibly retired 25+ year CEO Michael Neidorff (since deceased). Masimo’s victory over Apple may go down as either not mattering much–or that Apple will be fighting a much deeper-pocketed backer that knows how to win.

Update: It gets stranger. Masimo’s Consumer (audio) division’s brand president and general manager Joel Sietsema announced on Tuesday that he is no longer with the company. He came to Masimo through the Sound United acquisition being with them for a decade. He announced his departure on LinkedIn. It was apparently a mutual decision that preceded the current turmoil. Strata-gee 4 April

Why is the US DOJ filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple–on monopolizing the smartphone market?

March 22, 2024 | by

The Department of Justice’s antitrust filing against Apple on the iPhone is a many-splendored thing–and will take many years to work through the courts. It was filed Thursday 21 March in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging monopolization or attempted monopolization of smartphone markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. New Jersey’s US District Courts are in beautiful Newark, Camden, and Trenton. The DOJ was joined by 16 states in the lawsuit including NJ. Apple has promised to fight it tooth and nail, correctly realizing this goes to the core of its business. “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets” and “We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

On the face of this, the DOJ antitrust lawsuit seems almost ludicrous. While iPhones have a 60% market share in the US (Backlinko), there’s plenty of Android phones from Samsung and others (sadly, no longer LG) at competitive prices from every carrier. This Editor never looked twice at an iPhone for personal use and wasn’t impressed by a short-lived company phone, a totally locked-down iPhone 6. (On the other hand, my second computer at work where I really self-learned computing was an easy-to-use Mac 2si, a long time ago.) There are about 140 million iPhone owners in the US. Obviously, Apple makes a product and ecosystem, including the Apple Watch, that people, especially US upper-income users, prefer. There are features that Androids have and iPhones have, and sometimes the twains don’t meet, but for most of us it doesn’t matter.

But does Apple act in an anticompetitive, monopolistic way?

The DOJ says yes. The complaint states that Apple uses its control over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct, using its monopoly power to extract as much revenue as possible. The specifics include some centering on the Apple Watch:

  • Apple has exclusive software features–apps–that Android manufacturers don’t have or don’t work as well, for instance Apple Pay, iMessage, Find My Phone, FaceTime, and AirTags.
  • Apple Pay blocks other financial institutions from instituting their own cross-platform payment systems.
  • Apple’s control over app developers in their ‘walled garden’, locking them in especially in the cloud gaming area, but generally imposing contractual restrictions on and withholding critical access from developers in the name of security and privacy. Reportedly there are 30% commissions on app sales. Blocking ‘super apps’ restricts not only developers but also users from switching to Android since they will lose use of the app.
  • Apple’s messaging systems are only partly interoperable with Android and have unique features not available on Android
  • App Store commissions and rules are prohibitive for many developers
  • Locking in consumers with features not available on Android
  • Lack of interoperability of the Apple Watch with Android phones, and other manufacturers’ watches with iPhones 

What is interesting is that in the Apple Watch charges, there’s nothing about how Apple has essentially stolen features from other developers such as AliveCor and Masimo as found in other Federal courts. That IP theft is outside of antitrust and being litigated in other courts.

Much of the heated commentary has to do with the Apple Brand Promise and how they deliver apps. Apple is an integrator and people like the ‘walled garden’. The phone ‘just works’. Quoting Alex Tabarrok in Marginal Revolution, Apple is a gatekeeper that promises its users greater security, privacy, usability, and reliability. Users trade off control for a seamless experience and it delivers. It’s desirable. However, many of us don’t need or want to give over all that much control and desire flexibility in a more open platform. Not all of us need or want ‘seamless’ features like Apple Pay and live very well without that or games. 

What will keep DOJ and Apple entertaining each other in court for the next few years are court decisions over the years that have favored Apple:

  • Monopoly has been defined in repeated decisions as market share in the 70-80% range, not 60%
  • The concept of ‘procompetitive’ means that if you can choose between open access and the Apple ‘walled garden’, Apple has a legitimate competitive feature.
  • Companies don’t have a ‘duty to deal’ with other companies
  • Apple as a monopoly has already been dismissed in other cases

The push towards the DOJ action has apparently been stimulated by the EU Digital Markets Act, which Apple will comply with, as well as Apple competitors in the US who have tried and failed to restrict Apple in integrating its services. Will DOJ succeed in forcing Apple to be more like Android? The debate will rage on. DOJ release, 88 page filing, The Verge, 9to5 Mac, Medium.com, AP, Epoch Times

AliveCor v. Apple latest: Federal court tosses AliveCor suit on heart rate app data monopolization

February 14, 2024 | by

Apple wins one, but the other and more important AliveCor antitrust/IP cases go on. Judge Jeffrey White of the US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed one of the many lawsuits between AliveCor and Apple. This one goes back a few years when AliveCor provided a cardiac app to the Apple Watch. The claim is that Apple’s 2018 changes in algorithms reading heart rates in the watchOS5, upgrading from the “Heart Rate Path Optimizer” algorithm (HRPO) to the “Heart Rate Neural Network” algorithm (HRNN), hurt a third-party app provider like AliveCor with their SmartRhythm app designed for the HRPO. The AliveCor argument in the 2021 lawsuit was that Apple should have made the earlier algorithms available, and that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Apple’s argument was that the HRNN was more accurate, this was a genuine improvement that provided better data, and that third parties had no right to interfere in Apple’s design and business decisions. Since it was a summary decision, we do not know the details of Judge White’s reasoning. 

AliveCor’s full statement, provided by AliveCor, is:

AliveCor is deeply disappointed and strongly disagrees with the court’s decision to dismiss our anti-competition case and we plan to appeal. We will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property to benefit our consumers and promote innovation. The dismissal decision does not impact AliveCor’s ongoing business; we will continue to design and provide the best portable ECG products and services to our customers.

Separately, the ITC’s findings that Apple has infringed AliveCor’s patents still stand. Both the ITC and U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appeals will be reviewed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the coming months. In other recent developments, the PTAB recently ruled in AliveCor’s favor by instituting Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Apple’s patents and a stay of Apple’s countersuit.

We welcome any comments provided by Apple. Both AliveCor’s and Masimo’s suits go on in various courts.

Reuters, 9to5 Mac   Most recent AliveCor v. Apple coverage: spoilation split decision, ITC final determination

Peering through the cloudy crystal ball into 2024 healthcare investment and company health

January 25, 2024 | by

crystal-ballWill 2024 be the mirror image of 2023? This time last year, signs pointed to slow, steady growth after the bubble bath of 2020-early 2022 was followed by failures of tech-leveraged banks (SVB and Signature in March 2023) leading to a mid-year bust [TTA 11 Aug 23]. Some big deals kicked off the year (CVS’ Carbon Health investment, Oak Street mega-buy TTA 16 Feb 23). Then as the year went on, they were followed by sheer turmoil–huge losses and business divestitures (Cano Health, Bright Health, insurtechs like Clover and Oscar), bankruptcies and shutdowns (Babylon, Pear, Quil, OliveAI, Smile Direct, Cureatr, Rite Aid), IP lawsuits (Apple-Masimo, Apple-AliveCor, FruitStreet-Sharecare), C-levels walking the plank (Walgreens, Noom), and big layoffs nearly every week. Cigna and Humana called off merging again, perhaps because Cigna didn’t like what it saw. M&A fell to its lowest level in years and IPOs fell to zero.

To cap the year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new Merger Guidelines that made the M&A mountain even steeper, and will follow up this year with Pre-Merger Notification guidelines that will make that part even more costly. Both signal hard times for M&A. Add to that the overt hostility the chair of the FTC has to any kind of M&A and the weaponization of the tools government has at hand…..Even early-stage, independent companies which allegedly these agencies are trying to foster don’t catch a break. A change in the tax law hitting hardest in 2023 forces annual expenses in research and experimentation (R&E) to be amortized over five years versus one year which severely affects their financials. (Section 174 explained here)

The crystal ball promises to be more like a Magic 8 Ball this year. Other than a flurry of smaller-scale investments, a rumor of a $5 billion EHR company sale (Netsmart), and predictable layoffs in health systems, the start of the year in healthcare has been fairly (ominously?) quiet.

HealthcareFinance talked to two partners in law firm Akerman’s healthcare practice group to get their take, weaving in some findings from a PWC report: 

  • Buyer interest in acquiring practices and surgery centers
  • Partnerships on rise, for example Amazon’s One Medical with health systems 
  • Smaller hospitals in mid-America will merge as there is “safety in numbers’
  • More investment in life sciences and drug development, especially diabetes/weight loss drugs in the GLP-1 category
  • Anything around AI attracts interest

The two big factors: interest rates (the Federal Reserve has signaled no further increases, and maybe cuts in 2024) and (of course) a presidential election as well as all of the House, much of the Senate, and state gubernatorial offices.

Bubbling under this are reports of two big pending IPOs:

  • Home health, pharmacy, and eldercare services provider BrightSpring Health filed with the SEC on 3 January for a near-billion dollar IPO (publicly released on 17th). This is estimated to raise $960 million, valuing the company at about $3 billion. Common stock will debut between $15 and $18 on Nasdaq under the symbol BTSG. They are also selling 8 million tangible equity units at $50. Proceeds will go from the offerings to repay outstanding debt under various credit facilities and pay penalties associated with terminating its monitoring agreement with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (KKR, the current owner) and Walgreens Boots Alliance. BrightSpring serves 400,000 daily patients and dispensed 34 million prescriptions in 2022. IPO timing is still to be announced. This is the second time the company has filed, abandoning its first attempt in late 2021 as the market softened in 2022. KKR is signalling an exit…will it happen this time? Release, FierceHealthcare
  • Waystar’s IPO is still pending after being announced late last year [TTA 26 Oct 23]. The RCM and payments software company delayed it to 2024 due to an uncertain market at year’s end. Reportedly the roadshows were postponed to December but there has been no confirmation that they took place. Will it happen?

Fasten your seatbelts…it may be a bumpy ride.

Breaking: appeals court continues ITC ban on Apple Watches with working pulse oximetry (updated)

January 18, 2024 | by

Breaking  US appeals court lifts temporary injunction, bans sale of new pulse oximetry-functioning Watch 9 and Ultra 2. Yesterday, the US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit dropped the first shoe and that landed against Apple’s head. The court ruled against continuing the short-term stay against the sale and importation of new Watch 9 and Ultra 2 watches equipped with functioning pulse oximetry (blood oxygen, SpO2). That ban is now in effect. The ban is a result of the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) Limited Exclusion Order that found that Apple violated Masimo’s patents on pulse oximetry (SpO2) sensors and software that became effective on 31 December.

Apple’s workaround was to disable the pulse oximetry software for new watches they sell in Apple Stores and ship to third parties.  The hardware is still inside, but readings are disabled by the watchOS. These new versions have a /A after the model number. This workaround allows the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s Exclusion Order Enforcement (EOE) branch to permit new Watch 9 and Ultra 2 watches to be imported and sold. TTA 17 Jan

Reports have confirmed that existing models that were already sold or distributed before the ban through retailers will continue to have working SpO2 software. The court decision does not require pushing a software update that disables the blood oxygen reading. These pre-ban Watches sold by third parties and on the used market do not have the /A after the model number. Other Apple Watch models that never had the pulse oximetry feature were unaffected by the ban.

Of note, the appeals court cleverly separated the Apple Watch importation from the appeal of the ITC ruling. That ‘other shoe’ is a decision on whether Apple can appeal the ITC ruling, initiating the long appeals process. That decision is pending but due shortly. See TTA 28 Dec 2023 for the timeline.

Another possible outcome is that Apple settles with Masimo at some point, an action that seems obvious, but not in Apple’s suites. CNBC, 9to5Mac has the best explanation of the model changes with commenters reflecting the split jury on whether SpO2 readings are all that critical for Watchaholics. This story is developing and will be updated.

Update 19 Jan   This Editor enjoyed reading Strate-gee’s writeup on the latest developments in Masimo v. Apple. He digs into the roots of the dispute which go quite far back, to 2022 and Apple’s poaching of Masimo employees working directly on their pulse oximetry including their chief medical officer and chief scientist. The first employee went to Apple and then started his own company. He was found to have appropriated Masimo’s trade secrets and technology. Another finding: in the Masimo letter to the appeals court (included in the article) stating that the redesign of the Apple Watch “eliminates any irreparable harm”, part of the EOE proceeding is confidential and thus the EOE decision document is not public. His speculation is that this may be a key to whether the already in circulation Watch 9 and Ultra 2 models will in future have their blood oxygen reading disabled via an Apple software update.

 

News roundup: Apple Watch flagships cease sale due to Masimo ITC ruling (updated); Noom, WW enter GLP-1 telehealth business; Oracle sees health side up despite Cerner drag; Cigna has multiple bidders for MA business

December 21, 2023 | by

Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 going off sale in the US this week, upholding the ITC patent ruling favoring medical device developer Masimo. On 26 October, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Apple in the Series 6 and later violated Masimo’s patents on pulse oximetry (SpO2) sensors and software. [TTA 27 Oct] While this is awaiting presidential approval in the 60-day review period which ends on Christmas Day, Apple proactively restricted US sales of its flagship Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches which contain the blood oxygen sensors. (The SE model does not and continues to be available for direct sale.) According to 9to5Mac, online sales end on 3 pm Eastern Time on Thursday 21 December, while in-Apple Store sales stop after Christmas Eve. Of course, this won’t stop resales of existing stock through outlets like Amazon, Best Buy, and eBay. Under the ITC order, Apple cannot import either model after 25 December as the ITC issued a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) plus a Cease and Desist Order (CDO). 

The ITC is rarely vetoed by the White House in patent actions. After that point, Apple is free to appeal in Federal District Court, which is highly likely and where the deepest pockets usually win. Also HIStalk 20 Dec and Strata-gee 21 Dec

There are other wrinkles with Masimo, though. Strata-gee.com earlier this month (13 Dec) timelines Masimo’s patent difficulties with the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling against the very same patents, decisions upheld by the Federal Circuit Court. The PTAB also ruled against Masimo in the requested review of two Apple patents. Apple’s retaliation is to threaten lawsuits on Masimo’s new smartwatches. The icing on this messy cake is the November Delaware Chancery Court decision against Masimo, awarding $17.8 million in legal fees to activist investors/shareholders Politan Capital Management and Politan Capital NY LLC in a board fight that culminated in two seats to Politan directors.  One can sense that Apple is biding its time, though they could end all of this by negotiating a royalty to Masimo. Updated: see report on the stay effective 27 December here.

Noom and WW enter the weight loss drug-by-telehealth race. Ozempic and Wegovy, GLP-1 agonists, are increasingly popular in off-label use for obesity to produce weight loss, prescribed and managed by telehealth teams.

  • Noom, previously stressing behavioral change via app coaching direct-to-consumer, in October announced at HLTH Noom Med, a drug-focused program prescribing medications such as Saxenda (liraglutide), Wegovy (semaglutide), and the new Zepbound (tirzepatide), a dual GLP-1/G1P, all of which are injectable medications along with other GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic.
  • WW or WeightWatchers last week announced the WeightWatchers Clinic program. Via their recently acquired telehealth weight loss platform Sequence, it will offer weight loss meds and team management.  

They join Teladoc in developing weight loss programs, though Teladoc supports a physician-based care product for employers [TTA 21 April]. Both Noom and WW emphasize that member patients must qualify for the programs based on weight, BMI, and medical condition. Participants are educated through materials, coaching on behavioral management, managing appetite, and nutrition, especially in maintaining adequate protein as these medications not only induce weight loss, but also muscle loss (sarcopenia). One hopes that their teams are also knowledgeable on how these medications that slow down digestion to induce a feeling of fullness don’t mix well with surgical sedation, and that they issue cautions to patients before elective surgery. MedCityNews, FierceHealthcare, Forbes   

Noom has also replaced most of its top management since its new CEO joined in July. There’s a new CFO, chief technology officer (CTO), general counsel, two senior VPs (corporate development and partnerships, healthcare sales and services) a senior director of brand and communications, chief growth officer, chief product officer, and head of people. FierceHealthcare

Oracle Q2 results miss forecasts in rebuilding Cerner. Oracle Health, including the former Cerner, and slowing cloud growth were the culprits in their fiscal Q2 2024. Total revenue was $12.9 billion, up 5% in US dollars (4% in constant currency). Analysts expected $13.05 billion. Excluding Cerner, growth would have been 6% though Oracle did not separately break out revenue for the Cerner EHR business. Investors have noted two consecutive quarters of off-track growth and a weaker forecast for the remainder of the year. According to CEO Safra Catz and chairman Larry Ellison on the earning call, many upgrades and “modernizations” are being made to Cerner Millenium that will wrap up this FY. Half of Millenium customers will be moving over to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) by February. They are also “rewriting” Cerner’s health and data intelligence platform, Cerner HealtheIntent, to get into population-scaled health management. ‘Transforming healthcare’ is an expensive proposition indeed. No word on the VA.  FierceHealthcare, Oracle release

And a quick follow up on Cigna’s sale of their Medicare Advantage business. Two payers so far–Health Care Service Corp. (HCSC) and Elevance–are reported to be bidding for Cigna’s MA business. The value of the business is estimated to be about $3 billion and with just under 600,000 members as of September. Both HCSC and Elevance are much larger players in MA. HCSC has over 1 million MA members in Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates in Illinois, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Montana. Elevance, the former Anthem, has over 2 million MA members. Bidding is expected to close this week. While MA is losing money for Cigna, they could refuse to sell if bids are unsatisfactory. FierceHealthcare, Becker’s

Breaking: ITC bans Apple Watch imports on violating Masimo blood oxygen measuring patents (updated!)

October 27, 2023 | by

Another David v. Goliath fight! The International Trade Commission (ITC) on Thursday ruled that the Apple Watch violates Masimo’s patents on light-based technology for reading blood oxygen levels (pulse oximetry). This decision by the full commission upholds January’s ruling by a judge that Apple was in violation of Masimo’s patent rights. If upheld, this would ban the importation of current Apple Watches, all of which have pulse oximetry except for the SE. The ITC issued a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) plus a Cease and Desist Order (CDO). 

The next steps before the ban takes effect occur in the next 60 days with a presidential administration review. Presidential vetoes of the ITC are rare but not unprecedented. After the review period, Apple can take the ban to the US Court of Appeals, 

As usual there’s a war of words between the two companies:

Apple: “Masimo has wrongly attempted to use the ITC to keep a potentially lifesaving product from millions of U.S. consumers while making way for their own watch that copies Apple,” an Apple spokesperson said. “While today’s decision has no immediate impact on sales of Apple Watch, we believe it should be reversed, and will continue our efforts to appeal.”

Masimo: Chief Executive Officer Joe Kiani said the decision “sends a powerful message that even the world’s largest company is not above the law.”

Masimo primarily sells clinical monitors to hospitals, but has its own consumer products in the W1 and the upcoming Freedom watch. Reuters, 9to5Mac, Yahoo!Finance

The other David is AliveCor. Earlier, the ITC found that the Apple Watch’s ECG reading tech was in violation of AliveCor’s (the other David) patents. Apple’s appeal is pending in the US District Court of Northern California. The last word on this was in July [TTA 19 July and prior].

The Masimo story is developing and will be updated with additional information when available.

Updates   The Masimo filing dates back to 2021 and was about the Apple Watch 6, the first with pulse oximetry. That model has since been discontinued for new models Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 which also include blood-oxygen sensors. A previous lawsuit ended in a mistrial. Engadget

More background in Strata-Gee.com, an electronics/tech business site, on the mistrial. “Apple broke off partnership discussions with Masimo and then proceeded to hire away many of their employees to pursue adding pulse oximetry into Apple Watch on their own. It would later come out that Apple had hired a few dozen of Masimo employees.” This should sound familiar to those following the AliveCor patent infringement fight with Apple. Masimo did not win their claims of infringement on all patents listed in their lawsuit, but enough to trigger a ban.

The article also clarifies what the ITC did in using a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) to block Apple from importing Apple Watches with the pulse oximetry technology, then adding a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) to prohibit sales from existing inventory. Again, this cannot go into effect without a presidential review signoff.

James Major, a noted patent and IP attorney of counsel at Armstrong Teasdale, opines on this on LinkedIn. His first post contains the actual filing.  His later post explains what a Section 337 action of the Tariff Act (of 1930) entails.  (Disclosure: Editor Donna worked with Mr. Major on copyright renewals for trade names on behalf of a previous company, Viterion Digital Health. Since the company had been purchased and certain renewals had been forgotten in the transition, it got sticky, but he did a great job sorting it out.)

From the Editor: This leaves Apple with the following options: drag it to Federal District Court to delay the ban, hoping that Masimo runs out of resources and fight (likely), license the technology (not likely, given the ongoing nature of this and AliveCor’s suits), or develop their own technology or software updates that skirt the patents. Do bet that this last route if taken will wind up with additional filings with the ITC.

Legal roundup: Teladoc class-action suit dismissed; NextGen EHR $31M Federal settlement; significant AliveCor-Apple antitrust ‘spoiliation’ update; class action suits filed against HCA, Johns Hopkins

July 19, 2023 | by

The latest legal activity in digital health and cybersecurity:

Teladoc’s pending class action lawsuit by shareholders was tossed. This was originally filed in June 2022 after the crash of Teladoc’s shares after The Big Livongo Writeoff in May 2022. Shareholder Jeremy Schneider, represented at the time by Jeremy Alan Lieberman of Pomerantz LLP, filed a lawsuit in the US Federal Court for the Southern District, located in downtown Manhattan, representing shareholders who purchased Teladoc shares between 28 October 2021 and 27 April 2022. The lawsuit cited materially false statements that Teladoc made on its business, operations, competition, and prospects that were overly positive and inflated share value. Judge Denise Cote agreed with Teladoc’s 20 January motion to dismiss based on specific disclosures that Teladoc made in multiple SEC filings in that period from the 2020 10-K on that countered claims made in the class action lawsuit.

Reading Judge Cote’s decision, Teladoc used specific limiting and warning language (what marketers call ‘downside’ language) on the risks around the merger. Their executives in public statements indicated that operations and competition were challenging.  The class action suit failed to prove conclusively that the statements it identified were ‘materially misleading’ and would mislead a reasonable investor. Other statements made by executives were “largely non-actionable statements of opinion and/or expressions of corporate optimism”, a/k/a “puffery”. Class action suits of this type that go to Federal courts (versus state courts) rarely succeed due to the high bar of proof and volumes of case law at the Federal level.

This Editor noted that this particular class action did not include Mr. Schneider nor Pomerantz LLP. Different plaintiffs were represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP and The Schall Law Firm. Teladoc reportedly had no comment.  Judge Cote’s opinion (Casetext), Mobihealthnews, Healthcare Dive

Easier to settle for $31 million than fight the Feds. Charged with violating the False Claims Act (FCA) and providing illegal incentives for referrals (the Anti-Kickback Statute that applies to Federally funded healthcare), NextGen Healthcare decided to settle with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a whopping $31 million. The settlement does not admit wrongdoing by NextGen, which in its defense told Healthcare Dive that the claims made were over a decade old–and they were. At the time, their EHR used an auxiliary software that was designed only to perform the certification test scripts, thereby gaining 2014 Edition certification criteria published by HHS’s Office of the National Coordinator (ONC). In this Ur-time of EHRs, fixes like this weren’t (ahem) unusual. Compounding it was that the EHR then lacked certain additional required functionalities, including the ability to record vital sign data, translate data into required medical vocabularies, and create complete clinical summaries. Making NextGen’s decision the proverbial ‘no-brainer’ was that the controversial US Supreme Court ruling in June ruled that under the FCA, defendants are now liable for claims they suspect or knowingly believe are false, versus the previous objective standard. The Anti-Kickback Statute violation was blatant.  NextGen was giving credits often worth as much as $10,000 to current healthcare customers whose recommendation of NextGen’s EHR software led to a new sale, along with incentives such as tickets to sports and entertainment events. Anti-Kickback is one of those ‘biggies’ that the average healthcare employee is trained on within their first 60 days. DOJ release

The AliveCor-Apple Federal antitrust case had a small but important split decision regarding ‘spoiliation’ in the discovery process that could impact the case’s outcome–and future litigation. This June US District Court for the Northern District of California order went against AliveCor in part of what it sought–that Apple’s deleted emails to and from Apple’s then Director of Health Strategy should be considered adverse by a jury. But Apple was then found at fault for deleting them despite their relevance to the case with a ‘duty to preserve’ that started on 25 May 2021 with the antitrust litigation. In general, emails such as these to and from relevant people are subject to a litigation hold.

  • The director departed Apple only one week prior, 14 May 2021. His emails were auto-deleted at some point in accordance with company policy. In the discovery process, through other documents, AliveCor determined over a year later that the director was, indeed, relevant to the case.
  • The order states that Apple should have preserved his emails from the start as he was an individual with potentially relevant information. From the order, “[the director] worked on strategic health initiatives, and the record shows that he regularly corresponded about the Apple Watch and AliveCor with individuals Apple did identify as relevant.” “Apple did not take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation…” While it may have been “irresponsible and careless”, it wasn’t purposeful which then would have been considered for sanctions, but there is considerable strong language in the order that Apple’s counsel didn’t disclose the loss of this information even while under oath in a deposition. 
  • In the ‘adverse’ consideration, AliveCor did not gain what it wanted, which was an assumption that the lost emails were prejudicial–that they contained relevant material to AliveCor and Apple’s strategy of eliminating competition. “To the extent they existed, additional emails relevant to these topics may have been useful to enhance AliveCor’s case, but AliveCor has not shown that the absence of these emails will prevent it from proving its antitrust claims.”

AliveCor provided this Editor with a statement on the order:

“The Northern District of California judge’s description of Apple’s actions as ‘irresponsible and careless, and perhaps even grossly negligent’ in their handling of emails belonging to its former Director of Health Strategy that supported our pending antitrust case speaks to Apple’s usual playbook of shamelessly using legal tactics to steamroll innovative companies like AliveCor. Even though the judge stopped short of granting our motion to instruct the jury that they should assume the deleted emails were negative for Apple’s case, we are confident in the outcomes of our antitrust case and grateful for the outpouring of support we have received as we continue to hold Apple accountable.”

Editor’s note: she thanks an AliveCor representative for sharing this information along with the redacted court order. Apple is free to contact this Editor with its own statement.

Recent AliveCor versus Apple coverage on patents: ITC presidential review, ITC vs. PTAB, PTAB decision

Last but certainly not least, a class action lawsuit against HCA. To no one’s surprise, it was filed last week (12 July) in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, as HCA is headquartered in Nashville. The plaintiffs are named Gary Silvers and Richard Marous, two HCA patients living in Florida, and was filed by two law firms, Shamis & Gentile and Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Wieselberg Gilbert. The suit claims that HCA failed in their duty of confidentiality to protect sensitive information– personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI)–that was contained in the hacked records. While HCA has released that the records did not include the most sensitive clinical information as it was used for email communications, the volume of 27 million rows of data that was apparently unencrypted potentially affects 11 million individuals [TTA 12 July]. The suit charges HCA with failure to safeguard ‘Private Information’ as a reasonable expectation using reasonable security procedures in light of current regulations (HIPAA, FTC), plus the susceptibility of healthcare organizations to cyberattacks which is well known. It seeks monetary damages plus injunctive and declaratory relief. This lawsuit is likely the first of many. Healthcare Dive, Healthcare IT News, HIPAA Journal

These lawsuits based on hacking and cybersecurity responsibility are becoming routine. On 7 and 10 July, Johns Hopkins was sued twice. This was for a May ransomware data breach on a software vulnerability called MOVEit that was exploited by a Russian ransomware group called CLOP. This may have compromised, according to the first suit, tens to hundreds of thousands of records, including sensitive PHI. Both suits allege negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. They seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Both were filed in US District Court for the District of Maryland.  Becker’s, Healthcare Dive, HIPAA Journal

Breaking: AliveCor wins presidential review on ITC Final Determination on Apple patent infringement

February 22, 2023 | by

Enforcement held for PTAB appeal decision. As anticipated after the International Trade Commission (ITC) decision, finding that Apple Watches infringed three AliveCor patents on ECG readings [TTA 3 Jan], the Final Determination issued 22 December 2022 has passed the 60-day mandatory presidential review and is now in effect.

The penalty in the bond assessed against Apple–$2 per watch–applies to Apple Watches with the ECG feature imported or sold during the presidential review period. It is the first Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) with a cease and desist order against Apple. However, the penalty cannot be enforced until AliveCor’s appeal of the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling is decided. PTAB’s ruling in early December not only ruled that Apple did not infringe on AliveCor’s patents, but also threw out the AliveCor patents that were the basis for the infringement as unpatentable: No. 10,595,731 (“the ’731 patent”); No. 10,638,941 (“the ’941 patent”); and No. 9,572,499 (“the ’499 patent”) in their Apple Watches 4, 5, and 6.

The PTAB appeal is in progress. AliveCor also has a separate action against Apple through its Federal antitrust case in the Northern District of California. That will not go to trial until early 2024. AliveCor has about 170 patents, but the loss of any patents is important to a company’s IP and ultimately, funding. It’s also a clear signal to innovative companies that a David can win against a Goliath. AliveCor release

Split decision! ITC rules that Apple violated AliveCor patents; enforcement held for PTAB appeal

January 3, 2023 | by

David v. Goliath slugfest continues. The International Trade Commission (ITC) confirmed its Initial Determination [TTA 28 June] that Apple Watches infringed AliveCor patents on ECG readings. This Final Determination counters the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) December ruling that found not only in favor of Apple’s patents but also invalidating AliveCor’s three patents in question [TTA 8 Dec].  

The ITC’s findings come under a 60-day presidential review from 22 December. The penalty on Apple comes under a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO), a cease and desist order. It sets a bond in the amount of $2 per unit of infringing Apple Watches imported or sold during this review period. However, enforcement of the ruling will be delayed until the review of AliveCor’s appeal of the PTAB ruling wends its way through that process in the Northern District of California, which is expected to take place in early 2024, a year from now.

A running dispute since 2020. Once upon a time, AliveCor and Apple worked together to give ECG functionality to the Apple Watch. This ended after the Apple Watch 4 incorporated ECG readings. This resulted in court actions related to patents starting in early 2021 [TTA 29 Apr 21, 9 July 21]. Apple is now up to the Watch 8, incorporating more and more cardiac and health monitoring features. AliveCor has also moved on with financing with a GE Healthcare-backed Series F this past August, the KardiaMobile 6L, and the KardiaMobile Card. As of today, it has over 170 patents.

As this Editor remarked in December, going after a rival’s patents is an often necessary but risky business that can backfire. Right now, David has moved Goliath to a draw now, with further matchups this year into next. AliveCor release, Mobihealthnews      Hat tip to Dr. Dave Albert, founder and Reader.

AliveCor loses Patent Office ruling with Apple; three patents invalidated

December 8, 2022 | by

Apple prevails in the patent infringement suit by AliveCor–and got three AliveCor heart monitoring patents invalidated as ‘unpatentable’. In the duel of patent infringement claims dating back to May 2021 between AliveCor and Apple, the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) not only ruled that Apple did not infringe on AliveCor’s patents, but also threw out the AliveCor patents that were the basis for the infringement. AliveCor had sued Apple for patent infringement on their ECG technology in three US patents: No. 10,595,731 (“the ’731 patent”); No. 10,638,941 (“the ’941 patent”); and No. 9,572,499 (“the ’499 patent”) in their Apple Watches 4, 5, and 6. [TTA 29 Apr 21, 9 July 21] 

The term ‘unpatentable’ is used when the PTAB deems the patent, even when granted in the past, too obvious or too general. When the PTAB finds that, they throw out the patent and it is no longer valid.

Apple of course crowed that they developed their own patents fully on their own, and not from the time when AliveCor’s ECG monitoring was incorporated into earlier Apple Watches. Apple is up to the Series 8. AliveCor has already announced it will appeal and await the pending ruling from the International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of Apple Watches. The ITC’s initial determination in June was positive [TTA 28 June] and AliveCor of course is ‘cautiously optimistic’ on the Final Determination due in a few days (12 December). With the PTAB’s finding, it is far less likely that the ITC will impose an import block when AliveCor’s patents have been invalidated.  9to5Mac, Mobihealthnews

AliveCor has moved forward with its KardiaMobile series, including a credit card-sized device (left), and has enjoyed substantial investment, with an August Series F (amount undisclosed) round led by GE Healthcare. 

Patent invalidation is a danger in any patent infringement lawsuit. In 2015, Bosch Healthcare, which had bought HealthHero, an early RPM platform marketed as Health Buddy, and ViTelNet, was a serial patent challenger. They went after Philips, Viterion (while owned by Bayer), both to a draw, and won against a slew of barely-out-of-the-cradle companies forgotten by nearly all of us such as Alere Health, MedApps, Waldo Health, and Express MD Solutions. Then they sued Cardiocom in 2012 with the same expectation. Except that a year later, Cardiocom was acquired by Medtronic. Deep-pocketed Medtronic fought back hard–and by 2015, the PTAB invalidated most of Bosch’s key patents. Bosch withdrew from the US market abruptly in 2015. TTA 19 June 2015, 7 September 2015 primarily about the ongoing Teladoc-Amwell dustups

Given their funding and device development, AliveCor will likely not face Bosch’s fate, but such invalidations have consequences yet to be determined and litigated. 

US International Trade Commission initial determination: Apple infringed AliveCor’s patents (updated)

June 28, 2022 | by

If affirmed, a David versus Goliath win. AliveCor, the developer of the KardiaMobile ECG devices, announced late today that Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an Initial Determination that Apple infringed certain AliveCor technology patents. If affirmed by the full ITC in a Final Determination by 26 October (!), it could lead to an exclusion order barring the importation of certain Apple devices infringing on AliveCor patents from the US.

The initial complaint was filed in May 2021 [TTA 29 April] concerning Apple’s infringement in the Apple Watch 4, 5, and 6 of three AliveCor ECG technology US patents: No. 10,595,731 (“the ’731 patent”); No. 10,638,941 (“the ’941 patent”); and No. 9,572,499 (“the ’499 patent”). Last February, AliveCor successfully moved with the ITC to have the investigation terminated on certain claims on the three patents, but a considerable number remained. This is what ITC terms an “unfair import” or Section 337 investigation. These regard intellectual property rights, including “allegations of patent infringement and trademark infringement by imported goods.”

Updated for links: AliveCor press release, ITC Public Notice which details what parts of what patents have been infringed. Both the 731 and the 941 patents have been found to be infringed under Section 337. The 499 patent has not been violated. This Editor will assume we have to wait till October for any exclusion orders.

AliveCor releases KardiaMobile ECG in the convenient credit card size

February 2, 2022 | by

AliveCor, the parent company of KardiaMobile mobile ECG devices, is releasing for sale the KardiaMobile Card, a credit card-sized single-lead ECG. It was FDA cleared in November. It’s mighty for its size, detecting six of the most common arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, tachycardia, PVCs, sinus rhythm with SVE, and sinus rhythm with wide QRS. The pricing is $149 and includes the $99 annual KardiaCare subscription, which renews after the first year. 

In a price and product comparison, the standard KardiaMobile single lead, which is a strip with two press sensors, remains on sale for $169 and the 6L, which has a slightly bulkier sensor but is clinically equivalent to a six-lead ECG, is $239. KardiaCare includes advanced determinations, cardiologist reviews, heart health reports, and more. Owners of older smartphones should review compatibility before buying, however. Release, Mobihealthnews

As of 1 February, there is no update on AliveCor’s legal actions against Apple on patent infringement in the Apple Watch: April’s patent infringement complaint filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) [TTA 29 Apr 21] and their late May Federal antitrust suit in the Northern District of California [TTA 9 July 21].

Is healthcare too much for Big Tech’s Google and Apple? Look at the track record. And David Feinberg’s $34M Cerner package.

August 24, 2021 | by

With Google scattering Google Health to the four winds of the organization--the heck with what employees recruited for Health think of being reorg’d to, say, Maps or YouTube and falling through the corporate rabbit hole–more detail has leaked of Apple’s struggles. This time, on the scaleback list (a/k/a chopping block) is Health Habit. It’s an app in the Apple Store that connects users with AC Wellness, a doctor’s group in Cupertino, California. The ‘eligible participants’ are restricted to Apple employees. From the app site, they can check weight, nutrition, blood pressure, and schedule wellness checks. It seems to be the typical ‘skunk works’ project that’s not ready for prime time, but its public fate seems to be poorly timed and simultaneously, overblown because they are–well–Apple. 

Bottom line, is healthcare once again proving rather resistant to being leveraged by technological solutions? Those of us who go back to the Stone Age of health tech, or those of us who joined in the Iron and Bronze Ages, remember when you couldn’t get into a conference cocktail party without a “wellness” app. (You say you’re in behavioral and remote patient monitoring for older adults? Oh, look! A squirrel!)

Microsoft was going to dominate consumer health with their HealthVault for personal health records (PHRs). We know how that turned out–dead apps, Fitbit an also-ran bought, Pebble and Misfit going to the drawer of failed toys, Jawbone t-boning plus Intel and Basis written off in 2017, and HealthVault unlamentedly put out with the trash at the end of 2019. Oh yes, there was an earlier Google Health for PHRs, which died with a whimper back in 2012 or so.

The press releases crow about Big Tech’s mastery of complexity, yet going off on their own without partners–or even with partners–never seems to work. In the industry, it makes for a few good articles and the usual rocket launching at places like Forbes, but the pros tend to treat it with a shrug and pull out a competitive plan. Glen Tullman, founder of Livongo who will never have to worry about paying for chateaubriand for two for the next billion years or so, stated the obvious when he said that patients cared about the overall experience, not the tech.

Speaking of experience, Amazon Care promises the best for its employees and enterprise accounts–a one-minute telehealth connection, a mobile clinician if needed within the hour, and drugs at the door in two hours. All with direct pay. This has met with skepticism from telehealth giants like Teladoc and Amwell with established corporate bases. There’s also CVS Health and Walgreens. The Editor has opined that care isn’t Amazon’s game at all–it’s accumulating and owning national healthcare data on Amazon Care and Pharmacy users that is far more valuable than whatever is spent on providing care and services [TTA 16 June]. Will Amazon really be able to pull it off?

Paddy Padmanabhan, the author of Healthcare Digital Transformation, lists a few more reasons It’s Too Hard For Big Tech In Healthcare in his HealthcareITNews article here….

  • Healthcare is a part-time job for Big Tech
  • Big tech firms want to solve the healthcare problem by themselves
  • Selling technology is not the same as selling healthcare services

…but holds out some hope that the initial success of “digital-first and virtual-first providers of healthcare emerging as challengers” will point the way for them.

And speaking of Google Health and former employees, Cerner’s necessary SEC disclosure today of new CEO and president David Feinberg, MD’s compensation package was sure to create some talk in Googleville among his now-scattered team. $34.5 million over the next 15 months is structured as follows:

  • $900,000 base salary
  • a target cash bonus of $1.35 million
  • a one-time cash bonus of $375,000 stock
  • $13.5 million in Cerner’s restricted shares for 2022
  • $3.375 million in stock shares for the fourth quarter of 2021
  • a new hire award of $15 million in restricted stock shares to offset his equity loss with Google. 

Whew! Becker’s HealthIT

News roundup: AliveCor’s latest FDA clearance plus antitrust vs. Apple, VRI on the market, Walgreens’ ‘tech-enabled future’ indefinite plus VillageMD status, monthly telehealth usage drops 12.5%

July 9, 2021 | by

AliveCor disclosed its latest FDA 510(k) clearance for the KardiaMobile 6L, for calculation of patients’ QTc interval by the patient remotely or in the office with a physician or other clinician. QTc interval is, for those of us who aren’t cardiologists, is the total time from ventricular depolarization to complete repolarization. If too long (prolongation) or too short (congenital short) for the heart rate, it can indicate a dangerous ventricular arrhythmia or atrial or ventricular fibrillation. The manual measurement takes 30 seconds. AliveCor also has clearance on software (InstantQT) that measures QT intervals quickly and accurately to detect potentially dangerous QT prolongations in patients. Prolongations can be triggered by medications including anti-arrythmia drugs, anti-fungals, antibiotics, and some psychiatric drugs. AliveCor release. In other recent news, in June they acquired CardioLabs, a monitoring and cardiac diagnostic service provider based in Tennessee, to expand their clinical servies. Release.  

And in David Sues Goliath–Again–News, AliveCor also filed, in that quiet week right before Memorial Day, a Federal antitrust suit in the Northern District of California. This lawsuit is over Apple’s exclusion of other heartrate analysis providers from the Apple Watch, harming AliveCor and consumers, and seeks damages plus an injunction to cease the exclusion. Release  This is in addition to their US International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint on infringement of AliveCor patents held for heart monitoring on the Apple Watch 4, 5, and 6. That seeks to bar importation of Apple Watches [TTA 29 Apr]. No update on that so far. 

‘Insider’ report: VRI on the market. PERS Insider, our newly discovered source for news about the emergency response device market, reported on 22 June that VRI, a PERS and remote patient monitoring provider, is up for sale. It has been majority-owned by Pamlico Capital, a private equity company, since 2014. VRI does not sell direct to consumer but concentrates on health insurance, government programs, and other B2B through its dealer network. No reasons for sale given, but with all things telehealth and most things remote healthtech fetching hefty sums post-pandemic, perhaps Pamlico senses a fortuitous time to test the waters for an exit. Article. (Subscribe here to their weekly free letter)

Walgreens Boots Alliance’s new CEO promises a ‘tech-enabled’ future for the chain, sans details. The incoming CEO, Rosalind Brewer, fresh from her COO position at Starbucks, on WBA’s Q3 earnings call mentioned a buildout of a “previously communicated tech-enabled healthcare initiative” but no further information, as still reviewing the company. Stefano Pessina has retired from the long-held CEO position, but retains the executive chair title in addition to being WBA’s largest individual shareholder. Forbes’ breathless report. More to the profit point, the latest on Walgreens and VillageMD’s full-service Village Medical practices at Walgreens locations: 29 new locations in Houston, Austin and El Paso, Texas this year, staying on track for 600 primary care practices in more than 30 markets over next four years. Business Wire

National telehealth usage dips to 4.9% of US claims in April, a 12.5% drop from March. Analyzing regional and national insurance claims data, non-profit health analytics company FAIR Health in its monthly report tracks telehealth receding as patients return to in-person care. Telehealth is now dominated by mental health procedure codes, accounting for 58.65% of diagnoses, with all other conditions at 3% or lower. Regionally, the Northeast is even higher at 64.2% and the Midwest above 69%. Monthly National report, Monthly Regional Tracker page

David sues Goliath: AliveCor claims patent infringement by Apple–ITC filing requests bar on Apple Watch US importation

April 29, 2021 | by | 1 Comment

Slingshot battle! AliveCor, developer of the Kardia Mobile electrocardiogram (ECG) and connected heart rhythm devices, filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging Apple’s infringement of three AliveCor ECG technology patents for the Apple Watch 4, 5, and 6. The filing seeks to bar the importation of Apple Watches into the US and their sale.

According to AliveCor’s carefully worded release, their filing in the ITC “is one step, among others, AliveCor is taking to obtain relief for Apple’s intentional copying of AliveCor’s patented technology—including the ability to take an ECG reading on the Apple Watch, and to perform heartrate analysis—as well as Apple’s efforts to eliminate AliveCor as competition in the heartrate analysis market for the Apple Watch.”

This follows on the first shoe–AliveCor’s December lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the Apple Watch 4, 5, and 6 infringed on the same patents. The timing was interesting, as FDA cleared the latest update of the Apple Watch’s ECG monitoring at about the same time [TTA 10 Dec 2020]. In November, AliveCor cleared a Series E of $65 million.

The irony is that in 2017, the KardiaBand was the first FDA-cleared medical device accessory for Apple Watch. It was an ECG-reader that clipped onto the watch. AliveCor pulled it from the market after Apple introduced its own ECG feature in the Apple Watch 4.

AliveCor has their entire business riding on this. The mass-market Kardia Mobile, their six-lead medical-grade KardiaMobile 6L, and their KardiaCare platform with monitoring and evaluations are their business, unlike Apple for which ECG is only a feature.  Mobihealthnews, FierceHealthcare, MDDIOnline