“In order for the current wave of antitrust enforcement to be truly successful in promoting innovative competition, it must include the recognition of the incredible pro-competitive nature of the powerful U.S. patent system, which itself should urge Congress to treat long-expired The project’s swift action is like Article 101 reform.”
In late June, the medical technology company Masimo Corporation and its consumer device subsidiary Cercacor Laboratories filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), requesting the agency to conduct 337 investigations on multiple versions of Apple Watch. Masimo’s allegations, which also include ongoing trade secret litigation in the U.S. District Court, follow an increasingly familiar statement in which a large technology company (Apple in this case) negotiated a license with a small technology developer. Just to poach employees and ideas from the company. Smaller companies do not need to pay the original developer fees.
The technology developed by Masimo and Cercacor in the lawsuit against Apple is modern pulse oximetry, which can test the oxygen saturation level in human blood, which is useful for diagnosing various health problems and general health monitoring. Although light-based pulse oximeter devices are well known, Masimo’s technology supports clinical-level measurements, and traditional devices have problems with inaccurate readings, especially when the subject is under exercise or low peripheral blood flow. According to Masimo’s complaint, due to these deficiencies, other pulse oximetry devices available to consumers are “more like toys.”
Masimo’s Section 337 complaint stated that Apple contacted Masimo in 2013 to discuss the possibility of integrating Masimo’s technology into Apple devices. Soon after these meetings, Apple allegedly hired Masimo’s Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President Michael O’Reilly to assist the company in developing health and mobile applications that utilize non-invasive measurements of physiological parameters. Masimo also pointed out in the ITC complaint that Apple hired Marcelo Lamego, who was a research scientist at Masimo, who served as the chief technology officer at Cercacor, even though he was a named inventor of the Masimo patent claimed by ITC , But it is said that he learned about the cooperation of non-invasive physiological monitoring with Masimo at work because he has no previous experience in this field. Although Lamego stated that he would not violate Masimo’s contractual obligations by working based on Masimo’s proprietary information, Masimo claimed that Lamego began to develop a patent application for Apple based on Masimo’s confidential pulse oximetry technology.
Then, on July 2, a few days after Masimo filed its Section 337 complaint, a series of evidence entered a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Central District of California against True Wearables, a company that manufactures pulse oximeter devices. Medical device company, the company was founded by Lamego after the cooperation with Apple ended. The evidence submitted in support of Apple’s motion to withdraw the subpoena included an email exchange from Lamego’s Stanford e-mail account to Apple’s CEO Tim Cook in October 2013. Lamego wrote in it, although he Rejected the previous efforts of Apple recruiters to join Apple. Because of his fiduciary duties as the CTO of Ceracor, he is interested in joining Apple to help the company develop medical devices. In particular, in return for Apple’s senior technical director position, Lamego proposed to show Apple how to solve the “[t]he patient equation”, which he called the “deceptive part” of building an effective health monitoring device. “Almost the entire population”, not just 80%. Within 12 hours, Lamego received a response from David Affourtit, then Apple’s Director of Recruitment. He then asked Lamego to contact Apple’s recruitment department, which led to Lamego’s hiring at the company.
Masimo founder and CEO Joe Kiani told IPWatchdog while commenting on this development in the company’s lawsuit against Apple: “It’s incredible that any CEO, especially a company that claims to be A company that is an innovator will do anything besides notifying the human resources department. Don’t hire someone who makes such suggestions.”
Apple’s decision to hire Lamego and file a patent application based on Lamego’s knowledge of Masimo’s proprietary technology has become the focus of Masimo’s lawsuit against Apple and True Wearables in central California. Although U.S. District Judge James V. Selna rejected a preliminary injunction motion in October last year that prevented the publication of an Apple patent application listing Lamego as the sole inventor, Judge Selna found that Masimo may be based on the facts of the display of trade secrets. Misappropriated by Apple. In April of this year, Judge Selna approved a preliminary injunction motion in Masimo’s lawsuit against True Wearables that prevented the publication of another patent application listing Lamego and claimed to contain technology developed and protected by Masimo’s trade secrets. Therefore, True Wearables and Lamego have been ordered to take all necessary measures to prevent disclosure of related patent applications and anyone else disclosing Masimo’s trade secrets.
As a number of antitrust enforcement actions against large technology companies (especially Google and Apple) continue to advance, it is clear that most sectors of the US technology industry operate under a feudal system, and companies like Apple exercise their freedom to rule. To steal anything that satisfies them comes from innovative companies, which violates the traditional bond of intellectual property rights. What’s more disturbing is that if proper respect is given to patent rights, such as those owned by BE Tech, the inventor of Internet search targeted advertising, or Smartflash, the inventor, then the current wave of antitrust enforcement may never be necessary for every A digital application store provides the underlying technology data storage and access system.
Although President Joe Biden’s recent executive order on maintaining competition in the U.S. economy correctly acknowledges that “a few dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants,” it mainly focuses on the application of antitrust laws to solve problems. In the few places where the administrative order mentions patents, they distrustfully discuss the patent “unreasonably delayed…competition”, instead of discussing the advantages of strong patent rights for small companies trying to compete with Apple and Google. . world. In order for the current wave of antitrust enforcement to be truly successful in promoting innovative competition, it must include recognition of the incredibly pro-competitive nature of the powerful U.S. patent system, which itself should urge Congress to act swiftly against long-term delays. The project is reformed like Article 101.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist based in Buffalo, New York. He has been engaged in professional work as a freelancer for more than ten years. He writes articles about technology and innovation. His work has been published by Buffalo News, Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copies and documents for various business clients, and can be used for research projects and freelance work.
Tags: Apple, big technology, innovation, intellectual property, International Trade Commission, ITC, Masimo, patents, patents, pulse oximetry, Section 337, technology, Tim Cook, trade secrets
Posted in: Antitrust, Commerce, Courts, District Courts, Government, Inventor Information, Intellectual Property News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology and Innovation, Trade Secrets
Warning and disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they constitute any lawyer-client relationship. Published articles express the author’s personal views and opinions as of the time of publication, and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, client or IPWatchdog.com sponsor. read more.
Don’t forget the 21 IPRs submitted by Apple to allow their fans at the USPTO to withdraw Masimo’s patents on these groundbreaking inventions.
“PTAB trials will replace court trials and will be faster, easier, fairer, and cheaper than court trials.” — Congress
Tim Cook’s famous quote is: “We respect innovation. This is the foundation of our company. We will never steal someone’s intellectual property.”
Remember, this was after he learned of multiple verdicts of intentional patent infringement, and after Apple paid hundreds of millions of dollars to VirnetX for intentional patent infringement. Perhaps Apple does not believe that intentional patent infringement is “stealing [ing] someone’s IP”.
Tim Cook knew that he had committed perjury, just as Apple knew that it intentionally infringed patents as a normal part of its business plan.
Is anyone in Congress willing to stand up against Apple? Is anyone in Congress worried about perjury? Or domestic IP theft?
“If in the end Biden wins in November — I hope he won’t win, I don’t think he won — but if he wins, I assure you that within a week after the election, suddenly all those Democratic governors, all those The Democratic Mayor will say everything is magically better.” -Ted Cruz (predicting that if Joe Biden wins the 2020 election, the Democratic Party will forget the COVID-19 pandemic)
At IPWatchdog.com, our focus is on the business, policy and substance of patents and other forms of intellectual property. Today, IPWatchdog is recognized as the main source of news and information in the patent and innovation industry.
Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. Accept and close
Post time: Jul-26-2021