Apple Emerges Victorious in Antitrust Lawsuit Filed by AliveCor
In a major legal victory for Apple, a judge has granted the company a summary judgment in the antitrust lawsuit brought against it by AliveCor. The ruling, which was made today, means that the case will not proceed any further. While the full details of the ruling are currently under seal due to confidentiality requests from both Apple and AliveCor, it is clear that the judge found in favor of Apple, stating that the Cupertino-based company did not engage in any anticompetitive behavior.
The lawsuit, filed by AliveCor back in 2021, alleged that Apple had targeted its “SmartRhythm” app, which worked in conjunction with its ECG KardiaBand, multiple times for App Store rule violations. AliveCor further claimed that Apple had rendered the app non-functional by making changes to the heart rhythm algorithm in watchOS 5, which impacted the KardiaBand.
Apple introduced its heart rate neural network (HRNN) with the launch of watchOS 5, which significantly improved heart rate calculations during workouts. AliveCor argued that Apple had intentionally altered the algorithm to undermine the functionality of the KardiaBand and demanded that Apple continue to support the older, less accurate technology that worked with the SmartRhythm app.
According to AliveCor, the changes made in watchOS 5 were solely aimed at preventing third-party apps from detecting irregular heart rhythms. The company contended that these updates “eliminated competition” and deprived consumers of choice for heart rate analysis. In its lawsuit, AliveCor sought damages and an injunction that would require Apple to cease its alleged abusive conduct and continue supporting the old heart rate algorithm.
Apple, on the other hand, maintained that AliveCor did not have the authority to dictate its design decisions. The company argued that fulfilling AliveCor’s request to support the older heart rate technology would essentially require the court to micromanage Apple’s product engineering on a day-to-day basis. Ultimately, the court sided with Apple, agreeing that AliveCor’s demands were unreasonable.
In response to the ruling, Apple issued a statement expressing gratitude to the court for its decision. The company emphasized its commitment to innovation and creating products and services that empower users with health, wellness, and life-saving features. Apple stated that AliveCor’s lawsuit had challenged its ability to improve the Apple Watch, but the court’s ruling confirmed that Apple’s actions were not anticompetitive.
AliveCor, however, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision and announced its intention to appeal. The company asserted that it strongly disagreed with the dismissal of its antitrust case and vowed to vigorously protect its intellectual property in order to benefit consumers and promote innovation. AliveCor made it clear that the dismissal would not affect its ongoing business operations and its commitment to designing and providing top-quality portable ECG products and services.
It is worth noting that while Apple may have emerged victorious in the antitrust lawsuit, the ITC’s findings that Apple infringed AliveCor’s patents still stand. Appeals for both the ITC and U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will be reviewed at the Federal Circuit in the Northern District of California in the coming months. Additionally, AliveCor recently achieved a favorable ruling from the PTAB, which instituted an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Apple’s patents and imposed a stay on Apple’s countersuit.
In addition to the antitrust lawsuit, AliveCor has also filed several patent infringement lawsuits against Apple, alleging that the tech giant copied its cardiological detection and analysis technology. It is important to note that these patent infringement lawsuits are separate from today’s antitrust decision.
While Apple can celebrate this legal victory, it is clear that the battle between the two companies is far from over. The upcoming appeals and ongoing patent infringement lawsuits will continue to shape the future of their relationship and may have significant implications for the wearable technology industry as a whole.
