The US International Trade Commission urged an appeals court docket to reject
The tech big’s “arguments amount to little more than an indisputably adjudicated infringer requesting permission to continue infringing the asserted patents,” the ITC stated in its opposition to Apple’s movement for a keep, filed Wednesday within the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apple failed to display “the two most important factors in granting a stay—likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm,” the ITC stated.
There was “no legal error” within the fee’s late-October determination and Apple’s movement “essentially and improperly asks the court to reweigh the evidence,” supporting the ITC’s factual findings, in accordance to the submitting.
The hurt Apple contended it could endure with out such a keep “is not unquantifiable, but rather speculative,” the fee stated.
The ITC additionally stated Apple’s arguments counting on US Customs and Border Protection’s pending determination on whether or not sure redesigned Apple Watches infringe Masimo Corp.’s patents “are, at best, misplaced.” Should the CBP grant Apple’s request to promote its redesigned units, then the corporate’s argument for its “reputational and goodwill harm would largely dissolve,” the ITC stated in its submitting.
Apple on Dec. 27 resumed gross sales of its Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 after successful a short lived reprieve from the Federal Circuit, two months after the ITC dominated the smartwatches infringed patents held by medical-device maker Masimo, and at some point after the units’ US gross sales have been halted.
The ITC final week unsealed its Dec. 20 opinion denying Apple’s request in that venue for the keep pending attraction.
The Federal Circuit’s interim keep stays intact till the appeals court docket points its determination on whether or not to block enforcement at some point of the attraction—the identical request rejected by the ITC in its unsealed opinion.
Winning the temporary keep fulfilled one a part of Apple’s multi-pronged strategy to get better from the ITC’s determination. Apple’s plans for a complete answer to the patent battle additionally embody redeveloped software program that would enable it to promote noninfringing variations of the units as quickly as Jan. 12, when the CBP is scheduled to rule on the request.
Masimo, an intervenor in Apple’s attraction of the ITC’s orders, is predicted to file its opposition to Apple’s keep request by Wednesday.
The case is Apple Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir., No. 24-1285, ITC’s opposition to Apple’s movement for keep filed 1/10/24.