UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Monica Bhattacharyya
` Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN LIGHT-BASED PHYSIOLOGICAL
`MEASUREMENT DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
`
`RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S CORRECTED PRE-HEARING BRIEF
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`APPLE 1017
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`1
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................0 
`A.
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................2 
`B.
`The Parties ...............................................................................................................2 
`1.
`Masimo & Cercacor .....................................................................................2 
`2.
`Apple ............................................................................................................2 
`Overview of the Technology ...................................................................................3 
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................3 
`1.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502, and 10,945,648 .........................3 
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745..........................................................................3 
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127............................................................................4 
`The Products at Issue ...............................................................................................4 
`1.
`Masimo’s Domestic Industry Products ........................................................4 
`a.
`Masimo Watch .................................................................................4 
`b.
`rainbow® sensors .............................................................................4 
`The Accused Products ..................................................................................4 
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................................7 
`
`’501, ’502, AND ’648 PATENTS .......................................................................................7 
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................7 
`B.
`Noninfringement ......................................................................................................7 
`1.
`Accused Apple Watches ..............................................................................7 
`2.
`No Protrusions, Openings, or Through Holes “Over” or “Above”
`Interior Surface or Photodiodes When Apple Watch Is Configured
`to Measure Physiological Parameter (’501 Claim 12; ’502 Claims
`22 and 28; and ’648 Claims 24, 30) .............................................................8 
`No “Through Holes” or “Openings” “Through” the Protrusion
`(’501 Claim 12; ’502 Claims 22 and 28; and ’648 Claims 12, 24,
`and 30) .......................................................................................................11 
`No Indirect Infringement (’502 Claim 28) .................................................15 
`Complainants and Dr. Madisetti Have Not Alleged Infringement
`Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ............................................................16 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ..........................................................17 
`1.
`No Patent-Practicing Article
` ..............................17 
`2.
`Alleged Articles Are Not the “Masimo Watch”
` ...........................21 
`3.
`Complainants Lack Reliable Evidence Describing Alleged DI
`Articles .......................................................................................................23 
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice the Poeze DI Claims .............28 
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’501 Claim 12 ...........28 
`Articles Are Not “A User-Worn Device” [1 Preamble] ....28 
`Articles Are Not “Configured to Noninvasively Measure A
`Physiological Parameters” [1 Preamble] and Lack “One or
`More Processors Configured … to Calculate a
`Measurement of the Physiological Parameter of the User”
`[1E] ....................................................................................29 
`No evidence articles have “at least three photodiodes
`arranged on an interior surface…” [1B] ............................31 
`Articles Lack “…Openings Extending Through the
`Protrusion…” [1C] .............................................................31 
`No evidence articles have “opaque lateral surfaces
`configured to avoid light piping [1D] ................................32 
`The “Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’502 Claim
`28....................................................................................................32 
`Articles Are Not “A User Worn Device” [28 preamble] ...32 
`Articles Are Not “Configured to Non-Invasively Measure
`An Oxygen Saturation Of a User” [28 preamble] and Lack
`“One Or More Processors Configured To … Calculate An
`Oxygen Saturation Measurement Of The User” [28I] .......33 
`No evidence articles have “a first set of light emitting
`diodes (LEDs), the first set comprising at least an led
`configured to emit light at a first wavelength and at least an
`led configured to emit light at a second wavelength” [28A]
`or “a second set of LEDs spaced apart from the first set of
`LEDs, the second set of LEDs comprising an led
`configured to emit light at the first wavelength and an led
`configured to emit light at the second wavelength” [28B] 33 
`No evidence articles have “four photodiodes arranged in a
`quadrant configuration on an interior surface of the user-
`worn device and configured to receive light after at least a
`portion of the light has been attenuated by tissue of the
`user” [28C] .........................................................................34 
`No evidence articles have “a thermistor configured to
`provide a temperature signal” [28D] ..................................34 
`Articles Lack “A Plurality of Openings in the Convex
`Surface, Extending Through the Protrusion…” [28F] .......35 
`Articles lack “a network interface configured to wirelessly
`communicate the oxygen saturation measurement to at least
`one of a mobile phone or an electronic network” [28J] .....35 
`No evidence articles have “a storage device configured to
`at least temporarily store at least the measurement” [28L] 36 
`Articles Lack “a strap configured to position the user-worn
`device on the user” [28M] ..................................................36 
`
`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`(1) 
`(2) 
`(3) 
`(4) 
`(5) 
`(1) 
`(2) 
`(3) 
`
`(4) 
`(5) 
`(6) 
`(7) 
`(8) 
`(9) 
`
`- ii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`(1)
`(2)
`(3)
`
`(4)
`(5)
`(6)
`
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’648 Claims 12,
`20, or 30 .........................................................................................36 
`Articles are Not “A User-Worn Device” [8 preamble] &
`[20preamble] ......................................................................36 
`Articles Are Not “Configured to Non-Invasively Determine
`Measurements of a Physiological Parameter Of a User” [8
`preamble] & [20preamble] And Do Not Have “Processors
`Configured To” “Output Measurements of a Physiological
`Parameter” [8G] or “Determine Measurements Of Oxygen
`Saturation” [20E] ...............................................................36 
`No evidence articles have “a first set of light emitting
`diodes (LEDs), the first set comprising at least an LED
`configured to emit light at a first wavelength and at least an
`LED configured to emit light at a second wavelength”
`[8A]; “second set of LEDs spaced apart from the first set of
`LEDs, the second set of LEDs comprising an LED
`configured to emit light at the first wavelength and an LED
`configured to emit light at the second wavelength” [8B] ..37
`No evidence articles have “four photodiodes” [8C]; “at
`least four photodiodes configured to receive light emitted
`by the LEDs, the four photodiodes being arranged to
`capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user”
`[20B] ..................................................................................37 
`No evidence articles have “a plurality of openings provided
`through the protrusion and the convex surface, the openings
`aligned with the photodiodes” [8E]; “…a plurality of
`through holes, each through hole including a window and
`arranged over a different one of the at least four
`photodiodes” [20C] ............................................................37 
`Articles lack “a strap configured to position the housing
`proximate tissue of the user when the device is worn” [8I].
`............................................................................................38 
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................38 
`1.
`Anticipation/Obviousness ..........................................................................38 
`a.
`State of the Art ...............................................................................38 
`b.
`Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) / Single-Reference
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Based on Lumidigm ..........43 
`’501 Patent, Claim 12 ........................................................45 
`’502 Patent, Claim 22 ........................................................51 
`’502 Patent, Claim 28 ........................................................58 
`’648 Patent, Claim 12 ........................................................66 
`’648 Patent, Claim 24 ........................................................68 
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) ............................................70 
`
`D.
`
`(1)
`(2)
`(3)
`(4)
`(5)
`
`c.
`
`- iii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1)
`(2)
`(3)
`(4)
`(5)
`(6)
`(7)
`(8)
`
`Lumidigm in View of Seiko 131 and Cramer Render
`Obvious ’501 Claim 12, ’502 Claims 22 and 28, and ’648
`Claims 12, 24, and 30 ........................................................70 
`Lumidigm in View of Webster Render Obvious ’502 Claim
`22........................................................................................84 
`Lumidigm in view of Seiko 131, Cramer, and Webster
`Render Obvious Claim 22 ..................................................87 
`Lumidigm in View of Webster and Apple ’047 Render
`Obvious ’502 claim 28 .......................................................91 
`Lumidigm in View of Seiko 131, Cramer, Webster, and
`Apple ’047 Render Obvious ’502 Claim 28 ......................95 
`Kansas State 6D in View of Seiko 131 and Haar Render
`Obvious ’501 Claim 12 and ’648 Claims 12, 24, 30 .......100 
`Kansas State 6D in View of Seiko, Haar, and Webster
`Render Obvious ’502 Claim 22 .......................................114 
`Kansas State 6D in View of Seiko, Haar, Apple ’047 and
`Webster Render Obvious ’502 Claim 28 .........................117 
`d.
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................123 
`2.
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................126 
`Unenforceability ..................................................................................................130 
`1.
`Prosecution Laches ..................................................................................130 
`2.
`Unclean Hands .........................................................................................133 
`
`E.
`
`IV.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,687,745 .......................................................................................133 
`A.
`Level of Skill of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................134 
`B.
`Claim Construction (“Second Shape” Claims 1, 20) ...........................................134 
`C.
`Noninfringement ..................................................................................................134 
`1.
` Does Not Receive Light Having the Same (First) Shape
`That Was Emitted By the “Light-Emitting” Diodes” [1B], [20B] ...........135 
`a.
`Complainants’ expert’s test images confirm that
`
`............................................................................................136 
`
`...................................................138 
`Complainants and their expert have failed to show that
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`.............................................................................................139 
` Does Not Change the Shape of the Light Into a “Second
`Shape” [1B], [20B] ..................................................................................140 
`a.
`
`............................................................................................141 
`
`- iv -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`5
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
` ........................142 
`“Laser scattering” and “anisotropy” tests are irrelevant and
`flawed ...........................................................................................145 
`Apple Watch Series 0 Contains a Fresnel Lens That Changes the
`Shape of the Light Before the ’745 Patent ...............................................146 
`Complainants and Dr. Madisetti Have Not Alleged Indirect
`Infringement or Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ..........146 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................146 
`1.
`No Patent-Practicing Article
` ...................147 
`2.
`The Articles Complainants Rely On Are Not The “Masimo Watch”
` ......................................................................148 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles Do Not Practice Claim 18 ........................148 
`a.
`Complainants Cannot Show That Their Evidence
`Accurately Describes the Alleged ’745 DI Articles ....................148 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles lack “a light diffusing
`material configured to be positioned between the plurality
`of light-emitting diodes and a tissue measurement site”
`[15B] ............................................................................................149 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles lack “plurality of photodiodes
`are arranged in an array” [15D] ...................................................152 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles lack “a processor configured
`to receive and process the outputted at least one signal and
`determine a physiological parameter of the user responsive
`to the outputted at least one signal” [15H] ...................................154 
`Invalidity ..............................................................................................................155 
`1.
`Anticipation / Obviousness ......................................................................155 
`a.
`State of the Art .............................................................................155 
`b.
`Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and Single
`Reference Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on
`Series 0 .........................................................................................155 
`Series 0 .............................................................................155 
`Series 0 Alone Anticipates or At a Minimum Renders
`Obvious Claim 9 and Claim 27 ........................................157 
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) ..........................................163 
`Iwamiya In View of Sarantos Render Obvious Claims 9,
`18, and 27 .........................................................................163 
`Iwamiya In View of Sarantos and Venkatraman Render
`Obvious Claims 18 and 27 ...............................................172 
`Sarantos in View of Shie Render Obvious Claims 9 and 18
`..........................................................................................174 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s testing images confirm that
`
`(1)
`(2)
`(1)
`(2)
`(3)
`
`c.
`
`- v -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(4) 
`
`2. 
`
`
`Sarantos in View of Shie and Venkatraman Render
`Obvious Claims 18 and 27 ...............................................180 
`d. 
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................182 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................185 
`a. 
`Claims 1 and 20 Lack Written Description ..................................185 
`b. 
`Claim 15 is Indefinite ...................................................................187 
`Unenforceability (Prosecution Laches) ................................................................188 
`
`F. 
`
`V. 
`
`C. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,761,127 .........................................................................................189 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................189 
`B. 
`Agreed-Upon Claim Construction: “Plurality of Operating Wavelengths”
`(Claim 7) ..............................................................................................................190 
`Claim Term ..............................................................................................190 
`Agreed-Upon Construction ......................................................................190 
`“plurality of operating wavelengths” .......................................................190 
`“two or more operating wavelengths” .....................................................190 
`Noninfringement ..................................................................................................190 
`1. 
`State of the Art .........................................................................................190 
`2. 
`Claim 9 of the ’127 Patent .......................................................................193 
`3. 
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Have The Claimed “Thermal
`Mass” [7A], [7B], [7D], [7F] ...................................................................196 
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Determine A “Bulk
`Temperature” [7F] ...................................................................................200 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................202 
`1. 
`Complainants’ “Current Rainbow Sensors” Do Not Practice Claim
`9................................................................................................................202 
`a. 
`No “Thermal Mass” (Limitation 7[A]) ........................................202 
`b. 
`No “Bulk Temperature” (Limitation 7[E]) ..................................204 
`Complainants’ “Early Rainbow Sensors” Do Not Practice Claim 9 .......206 
`a. 
`No “Thermal Mass” (Limitation 7[A]) ........................................206 
`b. 
`No “Bulk Temperature” (Limitation 7[E]) ..................................208 
`3. 
`No Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement or Indirect Infringement ........210 
`Invalidity ..............................................................................................................210 
`1. 
`The Scope and Content of the Prior Art ...................................................210 
`2. 
`Invalidity Based on Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................211 
`a. 
`Mendelson 1991 in View of Any of Cheung, Aronow,
`Webster or Huiki Render Obvious Claim 9 .................................211 
`b. 
`Yamada 605 in View of Noguchi Render Obvious Claim 9 .......220 
`Complainants’ Validity Arguments Fail ..................................................224 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`- vi -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`Complainants’ Inconsistent Claim Interpretation ........................224 
`b.
`Mendelson 1991 ...........................................................................224 
`c.
`Cheung, Aronow, Webster, Huiki, Noguchi ................................225 
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................226 
`
`4.
`
`VI.
`
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY – ECONOMIC PRONG ........................................................228 
`A.
`Lack of Significant Investment in Plant and Equipment .....................................228 
`1.
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................228 
`2.
`Rainbow® sensors ...................................................................................234 
`Lack of Significant Employment of Labor or Capital .........................................237 
`1.
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................237 
`2.
`Rainbow® sensors ...................................................................................241 
`
`B.
`
`VII.
`
`REMEDY AND BONDING............................................................................................245 
`A.
`Any Remedy Should Be Narrowly Tailored to Permit Service, Repair, and
`Replacement for Existing Customers and Contain a Certification Provision ......245 
`No Bond Should Be Imposed During the Presidential Review Period ................246 
`
`B.
`
`- vii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`01 Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................195
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................196
`
`Cable Elec. Prods, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.,
`770 F. 2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................................126
`
`Cancer Research. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................132
`
`Certain Bone Cements, Inv. No. 337-TA-1153,
`Comm’n Op. (Jan. 25, 2021) ...........................................................................239, 244, 247
`
`Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 28, 2019) .....................................................235
`
`Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-1003,
`Comm’n Op. (Feb. 22, 2018) ...........................................................................................249
`
`Certain Dynamic Random Access Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-242,
`Comm’n Op. (Sept. 21, 1987) ..........................................................................................249
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-794,
`Comm’n Op. (July 5, 2013) .....................................................................................249, 250
`
`Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Inv. No. 337-TA-1221,
`Comm’n Op. (Mar. 14, 2022) ..........................................................................................232
`
`Certain Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-744,
`Comm’n Op. (June 5, 2012) ............................................................................................249
`
`Certain Road Construction Machines, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088,
`Order No. 30 (July 26, 2018) ...........................................................................................236
`
`Certain Stringed Musical Instruments, Inv. No. 337-TA-586,
`Comm’n Op. (May 16, 2008) ..........................................................................................240
`
`Certain Television Sets, Inv. No. 337-TA-910,
`Comm’n Op. (Oct. 30, 2015) ...........................................................................................248
`
`- viii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Elec. Motors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1073,
`Comm’n Op. at 7 (Aug. 12, 2019) ...................................................................................232
`
`Certain Video Game Sys. Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-746,
`Comm’n Op. at 5 (Jan. 20, 2012) ......................................................................................18
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int’l Ltd.,
`910 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..........................................................................................136
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................196
`
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-2141,
`2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ...................................................129, 130, 189
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`2016 WL 4161887 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2016) ..................................................................196
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................136
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects, Ltd.,
`401 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................190
`
`Hyatt v. Hirshfeld,
`998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021)........................................................................................134
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Nos. CV-00-20905-RMW, C-05-02298
`RMW, C-05-00334 RMW, 2007 WL 4209386 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ....................135
`
`Hyundai Elec. Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`899 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1990)........................................................................................249
`
`In re Bogese,
`303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................135
`
`Lelo Inc, v. ITC,
`786 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................241, 247
`
`Masimo Corp. & Cercacor Labs, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00048-DOC-
`DFM (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) ..........................................................................................133
`
`- ix -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................18
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................17
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .........................................................................................................190
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................17
`
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................189
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................126
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`552 F. Supp.3d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2021) ..............................................................................134
`
`Seaboard Int’l, Inc. v. Cameron Int'l Corp., No. 1:13–CV–00281–MLH–SKO,
`2013 WL 3936889 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) ..................................................................135
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP,
`422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................134, 135, 192
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................126
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................128, 188
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................................45, 158
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................................................45, 158
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...........................................................................................45, 73, 165, 157, 214
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................129, 154, 188, 189, 190
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ...............................................................................................................188, 189
`
`- x -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`’501 patent
`
`’502 patent
`
`’648 patent
`
`’745 patent
`
`’127 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,912,501
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,912,502
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127
`
`“Poeze Patents”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,912,501, U.S. Patent No. 10,912,502, and U.S.
`Patent No. 10,945,648
`
`FAC
`
`Warren Op.
`
`Warren Am.
`
`Warren Suppl.
`
`Warren Reb.
`
`First Amended Complaint (July 7, 2021)
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Steven Warren Regarding Invalidity for U.S.
`Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502 and 10,945,648
`
`Amendment to Expert Report of Dr. Steven Warren Regarding
`Invalidity for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502 and
`10,945,648
`
`Supplement to Expert Report of Dr. Steven Warren Regarding
`Invalidity for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502 and
`10,945,648
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Steven Warren Regarding
`Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502 and
`10,945,648
`
`Sarrafzadeh Op.
`
`Expert Report of Majid Sarrafzadeh, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity
`for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,687,745 and 7,761,127
`
`Sarrafzadeh Reb.
`
`Joint Reb.
`
`Expert Report of Majid Sarrafzadeh, Ph.D. Regarding
`Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,687,745 and 7,761,127
`and Lack of Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) for U.S. Patent
`No. 7,761,127
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Steven Warren, Ph.D., and Majid
`Sarrafzadeh, Ph.D., Regarding the Domestic Industry Technical
`Prong For U.S. Patent Nos. 10,687,745, 10,912,501, 10,912,502
`and 10,945,648
`
`Thomas Rpt.
`
`Expert Report of Vincent A. Thomas, CPA, CVA, CFF, ABV
`
`- xi -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Madisetti Op.
`
`Madisetti Reb.
`
`Goldberg Op.
`
`Opening Expert Report of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`
`Expert Report of Jack Goldberg Regarding Infringement and
`Domestic Industry
`
`Goldberg Reb.
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Jack Goldberg Regarding Validity
`
`McGavock DI Rpt.
`
`Expert Report of Daniel M. McGavock (March 4, 2022)
`
`McGavock CS Rpt.
`
`Expert Report of Daniel M. McGavock (March 23, 2022)
`
`- xii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainants Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories Inc., seek to leverage old
`
`ideas to eliminate competition in the consumer wearables market—a market in which
`
`Complainants have no meaningful presence. Complainants’ efforts are both inconsistent with the
`
`mission of the ITC and unfounded on the merits. To obtain their requested relief, Complainants
`
`assert five patents that claim long-known configurations of generic components for noninvasive
`
`physiological measurement devices. These types of devices have existed for decades, and
`
`Complainants were forced to claim such well-known components because they were trying to
`
`stretch their existing patent portfolio from the clinical medical-device field (in which they built
`
`their business) to the consumer-products field (in which Complainants have no meaningful
`
`presence). And, even after drafting claims directed to generic components, Complainants have
`
`still failed to cover the accused Apple Watch products, which do not infringe any of the asserted
`
`patents. Apple’s engineers invested significant time and effort to independent develop hardware
`
`and software for a pulse oximeter in Apple Watch that would meet Apple’s exacting design
`
`standards to provide a wide range of consumers with another useful wellness feature while
`
`retaining the aesthetic appeal that is Apple’s hallmark. The Blood Oxygen feature in Apple Watch
`
`reflects Apple’s own ideas and innovations.
`
`As explained below, the asserted claims both invalid and not infringed—and, moreover,
`
`Masimo’s conduct prosecuting many of the asserted patents renders them unenforceable. Masimo
`
`inexplicably and unreasonably delayed prosecuti