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 REPLY POST-HEARING BRIEF
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`APPLE 1018
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`A.
`The Parties ...............................................................................................................4
`1.
`Masimo & Cercacor .....................................................................................4
`2.
`Apple ............................................................................................................6
`The Asserted Patents ..............................................................................................10
`1.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502, and 10,945,648 .......................10
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745........................................................................11
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127..........................................................................11
`The Products at Issue .............................................................................................12
`1.
`Masimo’s Domestic Industry Products ......................................................12
`a.
`Masimo Watch ...............................................................................12
`b.
`rainbow® Sensors ..........................................................................15
`The Accused Products ................................................................................16
`2.
`JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................16
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT.......................17
`’501, ’502, AND ’648 PATENTS .....................................................................................18
`A.
`Noninfringement ....................................................................................................20
`1.
`Apple’s Noninfringement Arguments Apply Plain Meaning ....................21
`2.
`No Protrusions, Openings, or Through Holes “Over” or “Above”
`Interior Surface or Photodiodes When Configured to Measure
`Physiological Parameter (’501 Claim 12; ’502 Claims 22 and 28;
`and ’648 Claims 24, 30) .............................................................................21
`a.
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Infringe ..............................21
`b.
`Complainants’ Claim Construction Arguments Are Wrong ..........23
`No “Through Holes” or “Openings” “Through” the Protrusion
`(’501 Claim 12; ’502 Claims 22 and 28; and ’648 Claims 12, 24,
`and 30) .......................................................................................................29
`a.
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Infringe ..............................29
`b.
`Complainants’ Claim Construction Arguments Are Wrong ..........30
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ..........................................................34
`1.
`’501 Patent Claim 12 .................................................................................38
`a.
`Element [1PRE], [1F] ....................................................................38
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Other Limitations ...........................................................................42
`b.
`’502 Patent Claim 28 .................................................................................44
`a.
`Element [28Pre], [28I] ...................................................................44
`b.
`Element [28Pre], [28M] .................................................................44
`c.
`Other Limitations ...........................................................................45
`’648 Patent Claims 12, 24, and 30 .............................................................45
`a.
`Element [8Pre], [8G], [20pre], [20E] .............................................45
`b.
`Other Limitations ...........................................................................46
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................46
`1.
`Anticipation / Obviousness ........................................................................48
`a.
`The Concepts in the Claims Had Been Known for Decades .........48
`b.
`Lumidigm Alone Anticipates the Asserted Claims or, at a
`Minimum, Renders Them Obvious ................................................50
`Alternatively, the Lumidigm Combinations Also Invalidate
`the Claims ......................................................................................59
`IPRs Confirm Invalidity .................................................................65
`d.
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ......................66
`e.
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................73
`a.
`Claimed Combinations of LEDs, Photodiodes, and
`Openings ........................................................................................73
`Other Section 112 Issues ................................................................75
`b.
`Unenforceability (Prosecution Laches & Unclean Hands) ....................................77
`D.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,687,745 .........................................................................................79
`A.
`Noninfringement ....................................................................................................81
`1.
`Complainants Misconstrue “First Shape.” .................................................81
`2.
`Complainants Fail To Show That The Accused Apple Watches
`Practice Limitations [1B] and [20B], Because Complainants Fail
`To Establish That The Identified “Material” Receives And
`“Changes” The “First Shape.” ...................................................................83
`Complainants Fail To Show That Apple Induces Infringement Of
`Claims 9 and 27 .........................................................................................88
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ..........................................................88
`1.
`Element [15B] ............................................................................................88
`2.
`Element [15H] ............................................................................................91
`
`c.
`
`- ii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`3
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................94
`1.
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .........................................................94
`a.
`Series 0 ...........................................................................................94
`b.
`Iwamiya in View of Sarantos or Sarantos and Venkatraman ......102
`c.
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................109
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................110
`a.
`Claims 1 and 20 Lack Written Description ..................................110
`b.
`Claim 15 is Indefinite ...................................................................110
`Unenforceability (Prosecution Laches) ................................................................112
`D.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,761,127 .........................................................................................112
`A.
`Noninfringement ..................................................................................................114
`1.
`Complainants Improperly Offer New And Incorrect Definitions Of
`“Thermal Mass” And “Bulk Temperature For The Thermal Mass.” .......114
`a.
`“A Thermal Mass” .......................................................................116
`b.
`“Bulk Temperature For The Thermal Mass” ...............................119
`Complainants Fail To Show That The Accused Apple Watches
`Have “A Thermal Mass” (Limitation [7A]) .............................................123
`Complainants Fail To Show That The Accused Apple Watches
`Determine A “Bulk Temperature For The Thermal Mass”
`(Limitation 7[F]) ......................................................................................127
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................130
`1.
`Complainants Failed to Link Any Hearing Evidence to the Alleged
`Rainbow Sensors ......................................................................................130
`Rainbow Sensors lack “a thermal mass” – Limitation [7A] ....................131
`a.
`Alleged Current Rainbow Sensors lack “a thermal mass.” ..........131
`b.
`Alleged Early Rainbow Sensors lack “a thermal mass.” .............134
`Alleged Current and Early Rainbow Sensors lack a temperature
`sensor “capable of determining a bulk temperature for the thermal
`mass” – Limitation [7F] ...........................................................................135
`a.
`Alleged Current Rainbow Sensors ...............................................135
`b.
`Alleged Early Rainbow Sensors ..................................................136
`Invalidity ..............................................................................................................136
`1.
`Under Complainants’ Strained Interpretation of the Claims, a
`Temperature Sensor on a Conventional Circuit Board Renders
`Claim 9 Obvious ......................................................................................138
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`- iii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`Mendelson in Combination with Webster Renders Claim 9
`Obvious ....................................................................................................140
`a.
`Mendelson Renders the Claimed Thermal Mass Obvious ...........140
`b.
`Mendelson and Webster Render the Claimed Bulk
`Temperature Measurement Obvious ............................................143
`Mendelson Discloses Limitation [7H] .........................................144
`c.
`Yamada in Combination with Noguchi Render Claim 9 Obvious ..........146
`a.
`Yamada Renders the Claimed Thermal Mass Obvious ...............146
`b.
`Yamada and Noguchi Render the Claimed Bulk
`Temperature Measurement Obvious ............................................147
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................149
`4.
`VII. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY – ECONOMIC PRONG ........................................................150
`A.
`Lack of Significant Investment in Plant and Equipment .....................................152
`1.
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................152
`a.
`Unreliable Source Appendices .....................................................152
`b.
`Improper Reliance on Post-Complaint Evidence .........................154
`c.
`Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated .........................................154
`d.
`No Demonstrated “Significance” .................................................157
`e.
`Improperly Aggregated Expenditures ..........................................158
`f.
`Unsupported Claim of a Domestic Industry “in the Process
`of Being Established” ..................................................................158
`Rainbow Sensors ......................................................................................159
`a.
`Claimed Expenditures Are Not Tied to Article(s) Identified
`Under the Technical Prong ..........................................................159
`Unreliable Evidence and Allocations ...........................................160
`b.
`Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated .........................................161
`c.
`No Demonstrated “Significance” .................................................163
`d.
`Lack of Significant Employment of Labor or Capital .........................................163
`1.
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................163
`a.
`Unreliable Source Appendices .....................................................163
`b.
`Improper Reliance on Post-Complaint Evidence .........................164
`c.
`Non-Qualifying Expenditures ......................................................164
`d.
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated ................164
`e.
`No Demonstrated “Significance” .................................................170
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`- iv -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`f.
`g.
`
`2.
`
`Improperly Aggregated Expenditures ..........................................171
`Unsupported Claim of a Domestic Industry “in the Process
`of Being Established” ..................................................................172
`Rainbow Sensors ......................................................................................172
`a.
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Based On
`Unreliable Evidence and Allocations ...........................................172
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated ................172
`b.
`No Demonstrated “Significance” .................................................174
`c.
`VIII. REMEDY AND BONDING............................................................................................175
`A.
`Scope of Remedy .................................................................................................175
`B.
`Bond .....................................................................................................................175
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................176
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.,
`520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................48
`
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................38
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................72
`
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................110
`
`
`Atl. Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp.,
`970 F.2d 834 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................127
`
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................81, 119
`
`
`Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-929 (I.T.C. Apr. 5, 2016) .............................................................................88
`
`
`Certain Digital Media Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-882,
`Initial Determination (July 7, 2014) ...............................................................................155, 160
`
`
`Certain Dynamic Random Access Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-242,
` Comm’n Op. (Sept. 21, 1987) ................................................................................................175
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-701,
` Order No. 58 (Nov. 18, 2010) ..................................................................................................17
`
`Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Inv. No. 337-TA-1221,
` Comm’n Op. (Mar. 14, 2022) ................................................................................................158
`
`Certain Flocked Swabs, Inv. 337-TA-1279,
` Order No. 52 (June 21, 2022) ................................................................................................153
`
`Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-636,
`Initial Determination (July 24, 2009) .......................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Certain Television Sets, Inv. No. 337-TA-910,
` Comm’n Op. (Oct. 30, 2015) ...........................................................................................17, 154
`
`Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1073,
`Comm’n Op. (Aug. 12, 2019) ..................................................................................................17
`
`
`Certain Video Graphics Display Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-412,
`Initial Determination (May 17, 1999) ......................................................................................17
`
`
`Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................31
`
`Commissioner v. Soliman,
`506 U.S. 168 (1993) ...............................................................................................................120
`
`
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C.,
`460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................23, 24, 30, 81, 114
`
`
`cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.,
`986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................50, 53, 57, 58, 59
`
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................119, 120
`
`
`Engel Industries v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................21
`
`
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-2141,
`2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) .......................................................................1109
`
`
`Galderma Lab’ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................98, 150
`
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................120
`
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`607 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................81
`
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. Iancu,
`813 F. App'x 505 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................136
`
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Nos. CV-00-20905-RMW, C-05-02298
`RMW, C-05-00334 RMW, C-06-00244 RMW, 2007 WL 4209386 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 26, 2007) .........................................................................................................................78
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In re Bogese,
`303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................78
`
`
`Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc.,
`863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................78
`
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................58, 59
`
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...........................................................................................................48, 98
`
`
`Lelo Inc, v. ITC,
`786 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................164, 174
`
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.,
`759 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................105
`
`
`Lochner Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12113226 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2013) .......................................................................115
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................24
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. ITC,
`731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................12, 35, 37
`
`
`Nalpropion Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Lab’ys FL, Inc.,
`934 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................48
`
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................23
`
`
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................................110
`
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................97, 101
`
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp.,
`157 F.3d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................118, 122
`
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................102
`
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..........................................................................................81, 82
`
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................................141
`
`
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Iancu,
`78 Fed. Appx 871 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................................65
`
`
`Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.,
`440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................82
`
`
`Shu-Hui Chen v. Bouchard,
`347 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................131, 134
`
`
`Skilling v. United States,
`561 U.S. 358 (2010) ...............................................................................................................120
`
`
`Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..............................................................................................120
`
`
`TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................82
`
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................105
`
`
`Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................65
`
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................86, 125, 126
`
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................72
`
`
`Wind Turbines, Inv. No. 337-TA-376 (Remand),
` Comm'n Op. (Aug. 21, 1997) ..................................................................................................17
`
`
`- ix -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`86 Fed. Reg. 46275 (Aug. 18, 2021)............................................................................................175
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`’501 patent
`
`’502 patent
`
`’648 patent
`
`’745 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
`
`’127 patent
`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
`
`Tr.
`
`Dep.
`
`JX
`
`CX
`
`CPX
`
`CDX
`
`RX
`
`RPX
`
`RDX
`
`CPHB
`
`CIB
`
`CRB
`
`RPHB
`
`RIB
`
`RRB
`
`
`
`Hearing Transcript
`
`Deposition Transcript
`
`Joint Exhibit
`
`Complainants’ Exhibit
`
`Complainants’ Physical Exhibit
`
`Complainants’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Respondent’s Exhibit
`
`Respondent’s Physical Exhibit
`
`Respondent’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Complainants’ Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondent’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`- xi -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As Apple demonstrated in its initial brief, the record evidence confirms there is no proper
`
`basis for finding a violation of Section 337 by Apple, and that Complainants are instead using this
`
`forum to create litigation pressure on Apple and clear a path for an aspirational product not yet in
`
`release on the open market—the “Masimo Watch.” Complainants’ reply brief—replete with
`
`overheated rhetoric but lacking in actual supporting evidence—does nothing to salvage their case.
`
`While Complainants urge that direct competition is not required to find a violation, a
`
`protectable domestic industry indisputably is. Complainants have failed to meet their burden to
`
`prove one exists with respect to either the Masimo Watch or the “rainbow sensors.” With respect
`
`to the Masimo Watch, Complainants failed to allege, let alone prove, the presence of any
`
`“significant and unusual developments” that would permit reliance on post-Complaint evidence.
`
`The law thus requires assessing the asserted domestic industry at the time of the Complaint, but
`
`Complainants make no showing in their brief that the Masimo Watch project satisfied either the
`
`technical or economic prongs at that time. Even as of the hearing itself, Complainants were unable
`
`to establish—e.g., through source code, a demonstration, or comparisons to a reference device—
`
`that any Watch “physical” actually measures or monitors any physiological parameter. With
`
`respect to the rainbow sensors, both the technical and economic evidence were riddled with holes,
`
`as detailed in Apple’s opening brief and discussed further below. For example, nowhere have
`
`Complainants even identified which rainbow sensors fall into the Complainants’ “early” and
`
`“current” product categories—preventing a finding of the requisite nexus between the rainbow
`
`sensors and the proffered product data.
`
`The gaps in Complainants’ evidence extend to other issues—including invalidity and non-
`
`infringement—where Complainants’ arguments fail on both evidentiary and common-sense
`
`- 1 -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`grounds. As just one example, if Complainants were correct that they were the first to develop
`
`critical inventions needed for a watch containing a pulse oximeter, why is the Masimo Watch still
`
`not on sale on the open market even today, in July 2022, years after Apple began selling the
`
`accused Apple Watches? Aware of the shortcomings in their evidence, Complainants seek in their
`
`initial post-hearing brief to ignore the prior art that invalidates the Asserted Patents and raise new
`
`claim constructions across all Asserted Patents that attempt to read out critical limitations—
`
`because Complainants lack proof that those limitations are met by the Accused Apple Watches
`
`(they are not). Such arguments are both untimely and meritless.
`
`Complainants also resort to attacking Apple’s engineers with baseless allegations of
`
`copying and Apple’s trial counsel with accusations of trying to “distract from the merits,” “relying
`
`on unsupported innuendo,” “rant[ing],” and making “improper attorney speeches [that] appear to
`
`have been an attempt to mislead.” CIB 2-3. None of this happened. Complaints further suggest
`
`that if public interest had been delegated, they would have proven that Apple “deceiv[ed] the
`
`public” to make sales of Apple Watch. Id. at 3. As with their allegations that are before the ALJ,
`
`Complainants could not have proven that, because it is simply not true.
`
`Complainants’ misguided attacks also include arguing that “Apple introduced no evidence
`
`on its other bold promises from its opening.” Id. at 5. Complainants miscast aspects of Apple’s
`
`opening statement, and the record evidence precisely supported Apple’s actual opening statement.
`
`For example, Complainants allege that Apple “argued Masimo’s patents claimed technology of
`
`the lowest common denominator, and Apple would never seek to patent such features” but that
`
`“the evidence showed Apple filed multiple patents on the very limitations that Apple argued were
`
`‘old as the hills.’” Id. at 5. But what Apple’s counsel actually said (in the context of discussing
`
`the ’745 patent) was: “If that’s the purported innovation here, changing light from one shape to
`
`- 2 -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`14
`
`

`

`another by running it through a structure, the Fresnel lens in the Series 0 is certainly an example
`
`of that. … Again, we would never claim that's a patentable invention, but, if that’s the contention,
`
`the Fresnel lens invalidates.” Tr. 56:16-57:6. That an Apple patent mentions a Fresnel lens in a
`
`dependent claim does not suggest that Apple viewed either the lens itself or its effect of changing
`
`light from one shape to another as inventive. It did not. That form of lens was, as Professor
`
`Sarrafzadeh explained, an old idea—and at least as old as Apple’s own Series 0 Watch. Tr.
`
`[Sarrafzadeh] 1092:23-1093:8 (discussing RX-0392C.0006); see also Tr. [Venugopal] 819:7;
`
`823:1-9.
`
`Similarly, Complainants allege that Apple “promised it would ‘put in evidence’ of the
`
`Apple Watch Series 0 commercial release,” but “never introduced documentary evidence
`
`reflecting its final design or release.” CIB 6. This too is false both in its description of what was
`
`promised and what was introduced. Apple’s counsel stated: “The Series 0 watch was released to
`
`great public fanfare in 2014. The Apple witnesses will testify to exactly that.” And they did. See
`
`Tr.
`
`[Venogupal] 818:10-15;
`
`[Block] 910:22-9:11:2;
`
`[Land] 956:23-957:1, 962:15-19;
`
`[Sarrafzadeh] 1090:15-23. Even Complainants’ CEO agreed this date was not subject to
`
`reasonable dispute. See Tr. [Kiani] 138:1-4 (“Q. And you understand the very first watch, the
`
`Series 0, was released in April of 2015. A. Yes. I don't remember the exact timing, but I'm sure
`
`those dates are correct.”). Moreover, contrary to Complainants’ claims, Apple introduced
`
`“documentary evidence” of both the release and design of the Series 0. See, e.g., RX-0023 [Series
`
`0 Press Release]; RX-0392C
`
`820:10-15 (explaining that
`
`through Series 3).
`
` Tr. [Venugopal] 817:25-818:9,
`
` applies to Apple Watch Series 0
`
`- 3 -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Complainants’ allegation that Apple failed to introduce evidence of an “improper purpose”
`
`is similarly inaccurate. CIB 5. Apple noted during opening statements that “[this Investigation]
`
`was initiated explicitly because of Masimo's dissatisfaction with the pace of the District Court
`
`case. And, Your Honor, respectfully, we believe that initiating an investigation on those grounds
`
`is not a proper purpose, and, moreover, it led to Masimo prematurely filing this case, its complaint
`
`in this case, long before any mature domestic industry existed industry existed for at least four of
`
`the five patents-in-suit, and for all five of them we believe there's no domestic industry meriting
`
`an exclusion order in this case.” Tr. 41:23-42. Every element of that statement was borne out by
`
`the evidence, starting with Mr. Kiani’s admission that Masimo was motivated to bring this action
`
`by the pace of the district cour