![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneAt this time I can't find a clean link, just this Slashdot summary. I expect more information will be forthcoming.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined that the redesigned Apple Watch models do not violate AliveCor's electrocardiogram patents, allowing them to be imported. This decision comes before a consolidated hearing at the Federal Circuit Court regarding the same patents.
From the decision:
We find that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has met its burden to show that certain redesigned wearable devices ("articles at issue") do not infringe one or more of claims 12, 13, and 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,941 ("the '941 Patent") and claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 ("the '731 Patent). Thus, CBP's position is that the articles at issue are not subject to the limited exclusion order that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission" or "ITC") issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266 ("the underlying investigation" or "the 1266 investigation"), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337").
Apparently CBP is the agency that rules in disputes in front of the U.S. ITC.
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/07/13/0455202/apple-watch-is-cleared-by-the-cbp-of-infringing-on-the-ecg-patent
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection determined that the redesigned Apple Watch models do not violate AliveCor's electrocardiogram patents, allowing them to be imported. This decision comes before a consolidated hearing at the Federal Circuit Court regarding the same patents.
From the decision:
We find that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has met its burden to show that certain redesigned wearable devices ("articles at issue") do not infringe one or more of claims 12, 13, and 19-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,941 ("the '941 Patent") and claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 ("the '731 Patent). Thus, CBP's position is that the articles at issue are not subject to the limited exclusion order that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission" or "ITC") issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266 ("the underlying investigation" or "the 1266 investigation"), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337").
Apparently CBP is the agency that rules in disputes in front of the U.S. ITC.
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/07/13/0455202/apple-watch-is-cleared-by-the-cbp-of-infringing-on-the-ecg-patent
no subject
Date: 2024-07-14 11:11 pm (UTC)Hugs, Jon
no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-15 02:12 pm (UTC)Not sure how CBP gets to make that ruling, but I suppose it's a matter of "well, someone is standing right here, and we have to make a decision."
I've found that most customs stations have surprisingly huge amount of expertise at their disposal. Seems like everytime I, or anyone I know, has had something come up, there was someone there who knew about it. "Oh, you want to import an aardvark for breeding? Hey, Charlie, you used to breed aardvarks, can you take a look at this one?"