`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WEARABLE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES WITH EGG
`FUNCTIONALITY AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1266
`
`
`
`
`
`ALIVECOR’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO SUSPEND
`ANY REMEDY OR EXTEND THE TARGET DATE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`(Motion Dkt. No. 1266-034C)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Apple’s Motion Is Untimely And It Has Forfeited All Requests for Relief Other
`Than Suspension Pending An Appeal ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`There Is No Precedent For the Requested Stay ...................................................................................... 5
`
`There Is No Statutory Basis For the Requested Stay ............................................................................. 7
`
`The Commission Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Suspend Remedial Orders................. 9
`
`Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`AliveCor respectfully opposes Apple’s Emergency Motion to Suspend Any Remedy or Extend
`
`the Target Date and Stay Proceedings (EDIS No. 785898).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`On June 27, 2022, an Administrative Law Judge found that Apple copied AliveCor’s
`
`technology, infringed AliveCor’s patents, and violated Section 337. Since those findings, Apple has
`
`inundated the Commission with a series of extraordinary requests that run contrary to Commission
`
`practice and precedent. Apple has asked the Commission to reverse its longstanding interpretation of
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1) and announce that exclusion orders are optional, even though settled law holds
`
`that “the Commission is required to issue an exclusion order upon the finding of a Section 337
`
`violation absent a [public interest issue].” Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1358 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (emphasis added); see Apple Initial Remedy Submission at 65-67 (EDIS No. 782052). Apple
`
`also asked the Commission to accept a 1,400-page filing in response to a notice limiting submissions
`
`to 75 pages—and then Apple asked that it be allowed an extra brief to explain why it flouted the
`
`Commission’s page limits. See AliveCor Opp. to Mot. for Leave to File Sur-Reply (EDIS No. 783276).
`
`Now, three business days before the Target Date, Apple filed an “emergency” motion because Final
`
`Written Decisions on Inter Partes Reviews issued when Apple “expected” them to issue. Mot. at 2. In
`
`the motion, Apple asked the Commission to stay an investigation that is ripe for decision. Apple is
`
`once again asking for special treatment.
`
`Granting the requested stay would be unprecedented. The Commission has never stayed an
`
`investigation that is in this posture pending the appeal of a FWD when the complainant opposes , and
`
`Apple cites no authority to the contrary. Apple merely cites an Administrative Law Judge’s Order
`
`granting an unopposed motion to stay while the investigation was in the early stages of discovery.
`
`See Mot. at 6 (citing Integrated Cirs. with Voltage Reguls., Inv. No. 337-TA-1024, ALJ Order No. 55 (Aug.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`31, 2018)). But that is not even close to the procedural posture of this case, where the Target Date is
`
`just days away and the motion is opposed.
`
`Further, Apple’s decision to make its request three business days before the Target Date is
`
`inexcusable. Apple has been reminding the Commission that these FWDs will issue and requesting a
`
`suspension of any remedial orders since it filed its Petition for Review. See Apple Petition for Review
`
`at 98 (EDIS No. 776877). Apple could have requested a stay or delay of the Target Date at the same
`
`time. But it failed to do so—presumably because (a) there is no authority supporting its request, see
`
`Mot. at 4-5 (never mentioning a stay in the argument about “adhere[ence] to precedent”), and
`
`(b) Apple feared it might lose its arguments in the IPRs, so wanted to maintain the option of seeing
`
`what the Commission would do with its Final Determination.
`
`Apple called its filing an emergency motion, but there is no emergency here. Circumstances
`
`have not materially changed—all that has happened is the FWD issued as scheduled. As the
`
`Commission has recognized before, when rejecting many of the arguments Apple now relies on, the
`
`PTAB issuing a FWD does not invalidate any patent claim. See Certain Network Devices, Related Software
`
`and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Comm’n Op., 2017 WL 10954555, at *6-7 (Aug. 16,
`
`2017). Congress directed that “a patent claim . . . subject to IPR . . . is valid until the PTO issues a
`
`certificate of cancellation as to that claim following the exhaustion of all possible appeals .” Id. (citing
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(b)). And Congress also directed the Commission to “conclude . . . investigation[s] . . .
`
`at the earliest practicable time after the date of publication of notice of such investigation.” 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337(b)(1). Together, these directives refute both Apple’s claim that there is an emergency and every
`
`argument Apple makes about a stay. According to Congress, AliveCor’s patent claims are currently
`
`valid, and the Final Determination should not be delayed.
`
`Apple has no answer for these Congressional directives. It does not even address them when
`
`arguing for a stay. The Commission has before it an investigation that is complete, but for the Final
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Determination. The FWDs do not change that. The Commission has a mandate to act expeditiously.
`
`There is no evidentiary overlap between the investigation and the IPRs because Apple promised to
`
`use different prior art in the IPRs in order to avoid a stay of them. See EDIS No. 759993, Ex. A at
`
`16-17. There is no reason to deviate from Congress’s directives and withhold a Final Determination
`
`when it can be issued.
`
`Commission precedent is likewise settled, and it too shows that no stay is warranted. The
`
`Commission has held that a FWD on unpatentability is not sufficient grounds to rescind or modify
`
`the substance of a remedial order. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, Comm’n Op.,
`
`2020 WL 5407477, at *20 (Sept. 8, 2020) (citing Network Devices (II), Comm’n Op., 2017 WL 10954555
`
`at *6, *8). The Commission has explained that, when a FWD issues before the ITC’s remedial orders,
`
`“suspension of the remedial orders” can “comport[] with the statutory directive that the Commission
`
`complete its investigations ‘at the earliest practicable time’ (19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1)), while at the same
`
`time deferring to the PTAB’s Final Written Decision by holding its remedial orders in abeyance
`
`pending appeal of that decision.” Id. at *21. And the Commission has gone on to hold that such a
`
`suspension does not mean staying the issuance of the remedial order is warranted. See Certain Magnetic
`
`Tape Cartridges and Tape Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 2635509 at
`
`*38 (Apr. 9, 2019).
`
`Apple’s unfounded narrative that the PTAB is the only word that matters on patent claims is
`
`similarly unwarranted. The Commission is an independent agency, enforcing a different statute, and
`
`reviewing different evidence, including different combinations of prior art than were considered by
`
`the PTAB. In the Commission’s investigation, all of the evidence and briefing have been submitted.
`
`Apple’s contention that the FWDs nevertheless bring the Commission’s investigation to a screeching
`
`halt on the eve of the Final Determination elevates the FWDs above the Commission’s own work
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`and, if accepted, would provide a blueprint for respondents to seek eleventh-hour stays after the
`
`Commission and the parties devote substantial resources to Section 337 investigations.
`
`Nothing prevents the Commission from issuing its Final Determination on December 12.
`
`AliveCor respectfully requests that it do so.
`
`II.
`
`Apple’s Motion Is Untimely And It Has Forfeited All Requests for Relief Other Than
`Suspension Pending An Appeal
`
`The Commission should not address Apple’s request to stay or delay the Target Date. The
`
`FWDs attached to Apple’s motion are not a surprise. Apple knew when they were scheduled to issue,
`
`and it informed the Commission of the relevant date in its Petition for Review. See Apple Petition for
`
`Review at 98 (EDIS No. 776877). Apple then requested suspension of any remedial orders in both
`
`its Petition for Review and its response to the Commission’s request for remedy briefing. See id.;
`
`Apple Initial Remedy Submission at 69-70 (EDIS No. 782052). Apple never previously argued that
`
`the FWDs may warrant a stay or delay of the Final Determination. And Apple should not be permitted
`
`to raise new arguments now. The Commission has ordered that “[n]o further submissions on any of
`
`the[] issues [under review] will be permitted” in this investigation “unless otherwise ordered by the
`
`Commission.” Notice of Commission Decision to Review-in-Part, Certain Wearable Electronic Devices
`
`With ECG Functionality and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1266, 87 Fed. Reg. 58819, 58820 (Sept.
`
`28, 2022).
`
`If Apple wanted the Commission to see the FWDs, it could have filed a simple, non-
`
`argumentative notice to bring them to the Commission’s attention. Instead, Apple filed an eleven-
`
`page “emergency” motion three business days before the extended Target Date reiterating arguments
`
`from its earlier briefing and also raising the new requests for a stay or delay. Apple’s desire to change
`
`its request for relief and raise additional arguments that it omitted from its remedy briefing does not
`
`constitute an “emergency.” Apple raised the suspension argument in its prior briefs. There was
`
`nothing preventing Apple from making every argument in its “emergency” motion months ago. And
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`it would not be fair to prejudice AliveCor or delay adjudication of its Section 337 complaint because
`
`Apple is raising new arguments out of time. Apple’s request to stay or delay the investigation is
`
`untimely and improper. The Commission should dismiss it outright.
`
`III. There Is No Precedent For the Requested Stay
`
`If the Commission does consider Apple’s request for a stay, it should dismiss that request as
`
`contrary to Commission precedent and to Section 337.
`
`Apple asks to “stay these proceedings.” Mot. at 6. But this investigation is ripe for decision.
`
`The only “proceeding” Apple wants stayed is the Commission’s Final Determination —a final agency
`
`action under the APA. And although the Commission has the authority to stay a Final Determination
`
`pending appeal, see Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. 337-TA-921, Comm’n Op. Denying Stay
`
`Pending Appeal at 4 (Oct. 20, 2016) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 705), the party seeking such a stay has to carry
`
`a heavy burden. Apple would need to “demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of the
`
`appeal;”—or at least a “difficult question”—“(2) irreparable harm to the movant absent a stay; (3) that
`
`the issuance of a stay would not substantially harm other parties; and (4) that the public interest favors
`
`a stay.” Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-605, USITC Pub. No. 4282, Comm’n Op. at 3 (July 29, 2009). Apple does not and did not
`
`previously try to make this showing, and its failure to try is dispositive. See Certain Magnetic Tape
`
`Cartridges and Tape Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 2635509 at *38
`
`(Apr. 9, 2019) (“Because, Fujifilm has not analyzed the four factors, it has not established that a stay
`
`of the remedial orders pending appeal is warranted.”). This acts as an independent basis for the
`
`Commission to deny the stay request.
`
`Rather than address the standard for staying a Final Determination, Apple instead argues about
`
`a set of factors ALJs have used to determine whether a stay is warranted prior to an evidentiary
`
`hearing—one of the factors is “the hearing date” and another is “whether a stay will simplify the
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`issues and hearing of the case.” Mot. at 6 (emphasis added) (quoting Semiconductor Chips with Minimized
`
`Chip Package Size, Inv. No. 337-TA-605, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2223426, at *2 (May 27, 2008)). ALJs
`
`applying these factors have repeatedly found that the institution of IPRs and issuance of FWDs are
`
`insufficient to warrant a stay. See Certain Automated Storage & Retrieval Sys., Robots, & Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1228, Order No. 6 at 7 (Mar. 9, 2021) (denying stay); Certain Memory Modules and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1089, Order No. 49 (Apr. 11, 2019) (denying stay when FWD
`
`issued before the evidentiary hearing); Certain Laser-Driven Light Sources, Inv. No. 337-TA-983, Order
`
`No. 8, 2016 WL 11616074, at *4 (Mar. 3, 2016) (denying IPR-based stay that was requested five days
`
`after institution). Again, Apple does not even try to grapple with these past decisions or how these
`
`factors could apply when the parties have already completed the hearing in this investigation. Instead,
`
`Apple cites only an order approving a joint, unopposed motion and orders that are not related to IPRs
`
`or FWDs at all. Mot. at 6 (citing Integrated Cirs. with Voltage Reguls., Inv. No. 337-TA-1024, ALJ Order
`
`No. 55 at 7 (Aug. 31, 2018), and orders that do not address IPRs).
`
`In any event, Apple cannot satisfy the Semiconductor Chips factors.1 Discovery has not only
`
`“reached an advanced stage”; it has concluded. Semiconductor Chips, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2223426,
`
`at *2. The hearing is over, so it cannot be simplified. In fact, no issue in this investigation is simplified
`
`by the FWDs because the PTAB did not address any of the prior art Apple relied on before the
`
`Commission. Apple stipulated to the PTAB that it would “not seek resolution in the parallel
`
`proceedings,” including this ITC investigation, “of invalidity based on any ground that utilizes” the
`
`art it relied on in the IPRs. EDIS No. 759993, Ex. A at 16-17. And because “a PTAB final written
`
`
`1 The factors are: “(1) the state of discovery and the hearing date; (2) whether a stay will
`simplify the issues and hearing of the case; (3) the undue prejudice or clear tactical disadvantage to any
`party; (4) the stage of the [Patent Office] proceedings; and (5) the efficient use of Commission
`resources.” Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size, Inv. No. 337-TA-605, Comm’n Op.,
`2008 WL 2223426, at *2 (May 27, 2008).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`decision . . . has no collateral estoppel effect on the Commission proceeding,” Network Devices (II),
`
`Comm’n Op., 2017 WL 10954555 at *8, the FWDs do not affect, much less simplify, the
`
`determinations the Commission will make when resolving this investigation.
`
`Because this investigation is so close to its conclusion—literally days away—even the stage of
`
`PTO proceedings weighs against a stay. Apple represents in its motion that “any appeal from the
`
`PTAB’s rulings will be due on February 7, 2023,” in about two months. Mot. at 4. In 2022, the
`
`median disposition time for an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the ITC was eighteen months. See
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Median Time to Disposition in Cases Terminated
`
`After Hearing or Submission, https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/reports-stats/disposition-
`
`time/MedDispTimeMERITS-Table-FY22.pdf. So Apple is requesting a stay of about twenty
`
`months—in an investigation that had an initial Target Date of only seventeen months. See Order No.
`
`4. Just three business days before the Target Date, Apple is asking to more than double the length
`
`of this investigation at the finish line.
`
`Finally, there are virtually no efficiencies to be gained by sitting on a ripe Final Determination
`
`for twenty months. The briefs and evidence are in. The Commission has already devoted time and
`
`resources to its determination. Apple is asking for a delay simply to avoid the issuance of that
`
`determination. That sort of delay is contrary to Congress’s directive to resolve investigations as soon
`
`as practicable. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). And every relevant factor weighs against granting it.
`
`IV.
`
`There Is No Statutory Basis For the Requested Stay
`
`Apple argues that “a suspension or stay” would “faithfully implement[] several Congressional
`
`directives.” Mot. at 7-8 (emphasis added). But then Apple cites only examples of suspensions—not
`
`stays. See id. (citing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, 2020 WL 5407477, at *21; Magnetic Tape Cartridges, 2019
`
`WL 2635509, at *38 n.23; Three-Dimensional Cinema Sys., Inv. No. 337-TA-939, Comm’n Op., 2016 WL
`
`7635412, at *37 (Aug. 23, 2016)). There is good reason that the Commission has not conflated the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`two different procedures as Apple does. See Magnetic Tape Cartridges, 2019 WL 2635509, at *38
`
`(suspending remedial orders, but declining to stay them). And there is no basis—statutory or
`
`otherwise—for a stay.
`
`The Commission has “broad discretion in selecting the form, scope and extent of the remedy.”
`
`Viscofan, S.A. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Suspending enforcement of a
`
`remedial order is an “exercise [of that] discretion.” Three-Dimensional Cinema, Comm’n. Op., 2016 WL
`
`7635412, at *37. And in some past cases, the Commission has concluded that “suspension of the
`
`remedial orders comports with the statutory directive that the Commission complete its investigations
`
`‘at the earliest practicable time’ (19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1)), while at the same time deferring to the
`
`PTAB’s Final Written Decision by holding its remedial orders in abeyance pending appeal of that
`
`decision.” Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Comm’n Op., 2020 WL 5407477, at *21.
`
`But unlike a suspension, and contrary to Congress’s directives, a stay delays adjudication. An
`
`agency’s power to stay is conferred by Congress. See Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir.
`
`2017) (finding it “‘axiomatic’ that ‘administrative agencies may act only pursuant to authority delegated
`
`to them by Congress,’” and holding that the EPA lacked “‘inherent authority’ to ‘issue a brief stay’ of
`
`a final rule”); Automated Storage, Order No. 6 at 11 (“When Congress recognizes the desirability of
`
`staying cases involving the same patent in different fora, Congress ‘knows how’ to legislate to bring
`
`about this result.”). Congress has authorized the PTAB to stay proceedings in certain circumstances.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(d), 325(d). But it included no similar provision in Section 337, opting instead to
`
`require adjudication as soon as practicable. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). And while there is a statutory
`
`basis to stay remedial orders in the APA, see 5 U.S.C. § 705, Apple, as discussed, did not even attempt
`
`to meet the standard for such a stay. See Semiconductor Chips, Comm’n Op. at 3; Magnetic Tape Cartridges,
`
`Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 2635509 at *38 (“Because, Fujifilm has not analyzed the four factors, it has
`
`not established that a stay of the remedial orders pending appeal is warranted.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Instead of identifying an actual statutory basis for its requested stay, Apple “emphasize[s] the
`
`Patent Office’s leadership and expertise,” Mot. at 8, and seeks to elevate the PTAB’s authority over
`
`the ITC’s. Again, both Congress and the Commission have made clear that Apple’s arguments are
`
`wrong. In Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II), the Commission reviewed
`
`the America Invents Act in detail and explained, “the law is clear that patent claims are valid until the
`
`PTO issues certificates cancelling for those claims, which it cannot do until the exhaus tion of any
`
`appeals.” Comm’n Op., 2017 WL 10954555, at *7. Moreover, the Commission went on, unlike a
`
`decision from a federal district court, “a PTAB final written decision . . . has no collateral estoppel
`
`effect on the Commission proceeding.” Id. at *8. Apple’s arguments, which all suggest that a PTAB
`
`FWD must stop a Commission investigation in its tracks and take precedence over the Commission’s
`
`own work, have thus been rejected by the Commission’s straightforward and correct interpretation of
`
`the statute governing IPRs. Apple’s arguments about “remedial orders based on claims the PTAB has
`
`already found unpatentable” and the “public interest in enforcing invalid patents,” Mot. at 10, likewise
`
`get Congress’s intent—and its clear statutory directives—backwards. There are no invalid patent
`
`claims right now. Congress provided for appeal rights from PTAB decisions. Congress directed that
`
`patent claims remain valid until those appeal rights are exhausted. See 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). And
`
`Congress directed that the ITC should render a determination that is independent of the PTAB’s
`
`FWD as quickly as is practicable. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1).
`
`There is no statutory basis for Apple’s requested stay.
`
`V.
`
`The Commission Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Suspend Remedial Orders
`
`At most, the Commission could exercise its discretion to suspend enforcement of any remedial
`
`orders. But even here, Apple’s argument for the Commission doing so is weaker than in any past
`
`investigation when the Commission has implemented a suspension.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The Commission has held that the relevant line between when it will and will not consider
`
`suspending the enforcement of remedial orders is whether “the Commission issued its remedial orders
`
`before” or after “the PTAB issued its final written decision of unpatentability.” Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
`
`Comm’n Op., 2020 WL 5407477, at *20. AliveCor sued Apple in federal district court for infringing
`
`the patents at issue in this investigation on December 7, 2020. See Complaint, AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple,
`
`Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-01112-ADA (Dec. 7, 2020 W.D. Tex.). Apple did not file IPRs on those patents
`
`until June 2021, six months later. See EDIS No. 745156. Because of Apple’s delay, the FWDs were
`
`expected to issue after the Commission’s Final Determination—until September 28, 2022, when the
`
`Commission extended the Target Date. See Notice of Commission Decision to Review-in-Part, Certain
`
`Wearable Electronic Devices With ECG Functionality and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1266, 87 Fed.
`
`Reg. 58819, 58820 (Sept. 28, 2022). Now that the FWDs have issued a few days before the Target
`
`Date—a development Apple has “expected,” Mot. at 2, since the Commission’s September Notice,
`
`but a development Apple never argued should warrant a further delay of the Target Date until now—
`
`Apple raises new arguments and asks the Commission to delay resolution of an investigation that is
`
`nearly complete. Apple’s failure to make this request earlier indicates that it strategically laid in wait.
`
`Given these circumstances, AliveCor respectfully submits that the Commission’s discretion is
`
`best exercised in a manner that promotes diligence, reasoned decision-making, and straightforward
`
`(rather than opportunistic) litigation tactics. The Commission has a statutory mandate to act
`
`expeditiously, and sets target dates at the outset of investigations. Complaints are made public even
`
`before that, a month before the Commission decides whether to institute the investigation. If
`
`respondents want the Commission to consider a FWD when deciding remedial issues, they should
`
`likewise act expeditiously when filing IPRs. See, e.g., Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Comm’n Op., 2020 WL
`
`5407477, at *4 (FWD issued while Petitions for Review were still pending); Magnetic Tape Cartridges,
`
`2019 WL 2635509, at *2, *37 (FWD issued prior to briefing on remedy). Apple did not do so.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`AliveCor submits that the policies underlying the Commission’s directives are better served by
`
`rejecting Apple’s strategic delay tactics and declining to suspend any remedial orders that issue.
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion
`
`AliveCor respectfully requests that the Commission deny Apples motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 9, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ S. Alex Lasher
`S. Alex Lasher
`Brian L. Saunders
`Peter Benson
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington D.C. 20005
`Tel.: (202) 538-8000
`
`Sean S. Pak
`Andrew M. Holmes
`Bruce Lee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 875-6600
`Fax: (415) 875-6700
`
`Adam B. Wolfson
`Richard H. Doss
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel.: (213) 443-3000
`Fax: (213) 443-3100
`
`Counsel for Complainant AliveCor, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTAIN WEARABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES WITH ECG CAPABILITY AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1266
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Peter Benson, hereby certify that on December 9, 2022, copies of the foregoing document
`
`were filed and served upon the following parties as indicated:
`
`
`Katherine Hiner
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`The Honorable Cameron R. Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Email: Michael.Turner@usitc.gov
`
`Whitney Winston
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436-0003
`Email: Whitney.Winston@usitc.gov
`
`Counsel for Respondent Apple, Inc.
`
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77010
`Email: ServiceAppleAliveCorITC@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via EDIS
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
`
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
`
` /s/ Peter Benson
`Peter Benson
`
`