Apple pulls Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 from US stores due to ITC ban

18 December 2023
Apple will preemptively remove the two products while the US President decides on the ban.

Sort by:

Anonymous, 20 Dec 2023I believe it was intentional by apple. If masimo thinks app... moreWell as more comes out about this story that does appear to be the case. It's an utterly stupid move by Apple, who now deserve the situation they find themselves in.

Apple a counter suing Masimo mind. Though the one counter suit that Masimo cloned the Apple watch is laughable at best. Like i said before Patent suits are just par for the course in this game.

    Anonymous, 19 Dec 2023It has to do with the fact that Masimo's CMO went to w... moreI didn't know about the countersuit, ill have to look further into that

      • ?
      • Anonymous
      • 02s
      • 20 Dec 2023

      Anonymous, 20 Dec 2023I believe it was intentional by apple. If masimo thinks app... moreOh, thank you for explaining it so wisely! Maybe you should write to Massimo and Apple and just tell them, so that they don't waste their money on lawyers to deal with such a simple matter, which you could have cleared up with a single post....

        • ?
        • Anonymous
        • CbC
        • 20 Dec 2023

        DaFink, 19 Dec 2023Please mistake anything I said as defence of Apple in any w... moreI believe it was intentional by apple. If masimo thinks apple has infringed the patent, the first thing they would've done is to approach apple, confront them and ask for licensing fees.
        I think, at this point apple has taken this lightly and gone forward with the sell of watch.
        I believe apple infringed patent even though they knew everything. It's Apple's fault.

          • ?
          • Anonymous
          • CbC
          • 20 Dec 2023

          Anonymous, 19 Dec 2023No need for hysterics. There is a dispute and US-ITC issued... moreUp until the settlement happens, damage has already been done and masimo has nothing to gain through settlement then.

            • ?
            • Anonymous
            • 02s
            • 19 Dec 2023

            0odle-noodle, 19 Dec 2023crazy how it actually wasn't since other manufacturers... moreIt has to do with the fact that Masimo's CMO went to work for Apple in 2014. BTW, Apple is counter-suing Masimo for infringement of other patents.

              • ?
              • Anonymous
              • 02s
              • 19 Dec 2023

              .wojtek, 19 Dec 2023what? so apple can steal tech (because it's apple a... moreNo need for hysterics. There is a dispute and US-ITC issued a limited ruling which caused Apple to stop selling the products, as the article tells you. This is how the law works. I am sure that there will be appeals and eventually a settlement. It happens all the time, with most companies in this space.

                • ?
                • Anonymous
                • mip
                • 19 Dec 2023

                oppo, oneplus, realme, vivo got pulled from the market in the EU for patent fraud (nokia) - why should apple be allowed to do the same in the US? Do companies work above law?!

                  Dimtons, 18 Dec 2023Love or hate apple, but these patent wars hinders technolog... morecrazy how it actually wasn't since other manufacturers also have SaO2 sensors yet don't infringe on these patents

                    elmarcello, 19 Dec 2023nicely explained, but you still seem to imply, apple were a... morePlease mistake anything I said as defence of Apple in any way, they pay their own fatcat patent lawyers enough to do that.

                    All I was implying is that if this been intentional, then it was a monumentally stupid move on their part. Apple products get dissected to see what makes them tick the moment they hit the market. There are even YouTube channels dedicated to nothing but looking into every single aspect of Apple hardware and software.

                    So something like this was only ever going to remain a secret in the very short term, and Apple, given their own litigious history regarding patents would have very well known that, or should have at least 🤷

                      Ottonis, 19 Dec 2023I agree with you on the fact that patent disputes are often... moreAgreed and my argument is that is a situation Apple should fully have expected to find themselves in, eventually.

                      Look this may well be a case of intentional patent infringement on Apple’s part, and if so they deserve to have the proverbial book thrown at them, as much for their own short sightedness as anything else.

                      It’s remains possible though, that this was unintentional. Though as you say, the fact that they are taking this action says Apple do themselves believe they might just be in the wrong. I still think that given the complexity of modern technology and patent law, unintentional infringement is always a risk.

                        DaFink, 19 Dec 2023Well my first reply to this apparently upset the moderators... moreI agree with you on the fact that patent disputes are often extremely complex matter.

                        However, be aware of the fact, that retraction of a product from market is usually NOT a sign of "good will" but rather a carefully weighed option in order to minimize own potential damages.
                        This also means that the patent holder has already approached Apple long ago and that they layed out their patents and reqested payment of due licence fees.
                        Now, if Apple was sure that the patent claimes are unsubstantiated, they would just laugh that off and keep on selling products. And this does not seem to be the case here.
                        In other words: Apple wouldn't want to pay licence fees but they see the risk of being convicted to do so, so they are doing damage control right now.

                          • e
                          • elmarcello
                          • 0p}
                          • 19 Dec 2023

                          DaFink, 19 Dec 2023Well my first reply to this apparently upset the moderators... morenicely explained, but you still seem to imply, apple were any fair/unconcious(?) doing that kind of infringement.

                          apple are actually known to do dubious and particularly unlawful acts in industry. They are often regarded as "patent troll" themselves for suing everyone and everybody out there in the industry, regarding patents particularly.

                          Reffering to higher instancies , to president himself (?!), makes it even more evident, that they seem to be out of legal steps in settling this dispute.

                            Ottonis, 18 Dec 2023Instead of hoping for a veto from the president, how about ... moreWell my first reply to this apparently upset the moderators somehow, so I’ll try again….

                            ‘Apple is thinking they are above all laws?‘

                            For that to make sense, Apple would have to neither voluntarily halt sales of the Apple watch models in question, nor comply with any government ordered mandate to do so.

                            Patent disputes are a complex matter, and all too common with practically all major tech company embroiled in more than one at any given time. My take is that this was unintentional on Apple’s part, and I say that because to be otherwise would imply one of the following two scenarios:

                            A. Apple simply thought nobody would notice in the marketing leading and therefore most heavily scrutinised product in its category.
                            B. They know they would eventually be discovered, and would then have to halt sales of the latest models of one of their biggest selling products.

                            Now does either of these make sense to any of you, cause they don’t to me. Like I said patent disputes are complex and tech firms are always getting mixed up in them. It’s most likely that Apple have inadvertently stepped on Masimo’s toes here, and realising this they are taking steps to correct.

                            If the final ruling goes against Apple in this matter after any appeals and what not, who then turn around and say words to the effect of ‘so what, to hell with all of you’ and simply start selling the offending models anyway, then your statement about them thinking they are above the law will carry some weight.

                            It as it stand right now they Siemens to be complying with the law. Either way, this will all get sorted in the end, right in time for the next patent dispute case no doubt, I knew I should have become a patent attorney 🤔


                              • ?
                              • Anonymous
                              • Bn5
                              • 19 Dec 2023

                              Note 20 Ultra, 19 Dec 2023After seeing the Watch 9 Ultra 2 review, still people are i... moreRegular Series 9 is 18 hrs. Ultra 2 is 36 hrs. Get your facts right.

                                Dimtons, 18 Dec 2023Love or hate apple, but these patent wars hinders technolog... morewhat?

                                so apple can steal tech (because it's apple and has sh*load of money) and original inventor has nothing?

                                this literały stifle innovation as bright people are less inclined to innovate... or they be employed by apple further pushing monopoly... what a dumb stance...

                                  Anonymous, 18 Dec 2023What are you talking about? Patents are the enemy of innova... more"Patents are the enemy of innovation"

                                  That's debatable. One could argue that without patent protection, there would be no incentive to research and develop new inventions.

                                    After seeing the Watch 9 Ultra 2 review, still people are interested in it? 18 hrs battery life, unable to detect sleep, fitness tracker limitations, no hypertension detection

                                      Nice Strategy!
                                      If you want, go outside, pay extra in Euro and bring it home. Pay Triple the times to have the watch. Why should be vetoed?

                                        • ?
                                        • Anonymous
                                        • uJD
                                        • 19 Dec 2023

                                        Ottonis, 18 Dec 2023Instead of hoping for a veto from the president, how about ... moreIt will drive up sales before the holidays. So win for Apple.

                                        Then before 25.. veto... extra win.

                                          1 of 2