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 POST-HEARING BRIEF
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`A. 
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................6 
`B. 
`The Parties ...............................................................................................................6 
`1. 
`Masimo & Cercacor .....................................................................................6 
`2. 
`Apple ............................................................................................................7 
`Overview of the Technology ...................................................................................7 
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................7 
`1. 
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,501, 10,912,502, and 10,945,648 .........................7 
`2. 
`U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745..........................................................................8 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,127............................................................................9 
`The Products at Issue ...............................................................................................9 
`1. 
`Masimo’s Domestic Industry Products ........................................................9 
`a. 
`Masimo Watch .................................................................................9 
`b. 
`rainbow sensors ..............................................................................12 
`The Accused Products ................................................................................13 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`2. 
`
`JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................18 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR DOMESTIC INDUSTRY REQUIREMENT.......................18 
`
`2. 
`
`’501, ’502, AND ’648 PATENTS .....................................................................................21 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................................26 
`B. 
`Noninfringement ....................................................................................................26 
`1. 
`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; ’648 Claims 24, 30) ..................................................................26 
`No “Through Holes” or “Openings” “Through” the Protrusion
`(’501 Claim 12; ’502 Claims 22 and 28; ’648 Claims 12, 24, and
`30) ..............................................................................................................34 
`3. 
`No Indirect Infringement (’502 Claim 28) .................................................39 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ..........................................................41 
`1. 
`No Patent-Practicing Article Existed As Of The Complaint .....................42 
`2. 
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice the Poeze DI Claims .............45 
`a. 
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’501 Claim 12 ...........45 
`CPX-0052C and CPX-0058C are not “a user-worn device”
`(1) 
`[1 preamble], [12] ..............................................................45 
`
`C. 
`
`- i -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`Articles are not “configured to noninvasively measure a
`physiological parameter” [1 preamble] and lack “one or
`more processors configured … to calculate a measurement
`of the physiological parameter of the user” [1F] ...............46 
`No evidence articles have “at least three photodiodes
`arranged on an interior surface…” [1B]; or “opaque lateral
`surfaces configured to avoid light piping” [1E] .................52 
`The “Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’502 Claim
`28....................................................................................................54 
`CPX-0052C and CPX-0058C are not “a user worn device”
`(1) 
`[28 preamble] and lack “a strap configured to position the
`user-worn device on the user” [28M] ................................54 
`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] .......54 
`No evidence articles have “a first set of light emitting
`diodes (LEDs), the first set of LEDs comprising at least an
`LED configured to emit light at a first wavelength and an
`LED configured to emit light at a second wavelength”
`[28A]; “a second set of LEDs spaced apart from the first set
`of LEDs, the second set of LEDs comprising at least an
`LED configured to emit light at the first wavelength and an
`LED configured to emit light at the second wavelength”
`[28B] “four photodiodes arranged in a quadrant
`configuration…” [28C]; a “thermistor…” [28D]; “a storage
`device configured to at least temporarily store at least the
`measurement” [28L] ..........................................................54 
`“Masimo Watch” Articles Do Not Practice ’648 Claims 12,
`20, or 30 .........................................................................................55 
`CPX-0052C and CPX-0058C are not “user-worn device[s]”
`(1) 
`[8 preamble] & [20 preamble] and lack “a strap configured
`to position the housing proximate tissue of the user when
`the device is worn” [8I]......................................................55 
`Articles are not “configured to non-invasively determine
`measurements of a physiological parameter of a user” [8
`preamble] & [20 preamble] and do not have “processors
`configured to” “output measurements of a physiological
`parameter” [8G] or “determine measurements of oxygen
`saturation” [20E] ................................................................56 
`No evidence articles have “a first set of light emitting
`diodes (LEDs)…” [8A]; “second set of LEDs spaced apart
`from the first set of LEDs…” [8B]; “four photodiodes”
`[8C]; or “at least four photodiodes…being arranged to
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`- ii -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user”
`[20B] ..................................................................................56 
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................56 
`1. 
`Anticipation / Obviousness ........................................................................57 
`a. 
`State of the Art ...............................................................................57 
`Known Components for Light-Based Sensors Before 2008
`(1) 
`............................................................................................57 
`Kansas State Devices Built Before 2008 ...........................64 
`(2) 
`Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) / Single-Reference
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on
`Lumidigm .......................................................................................67 
`(1) 
`Lumidigm ...........................................................................67 
`(2) 
`’501 Patent, Claim 12 ........................................................70 
`(3) 
`’502 Patent, Claim 22 ........................................................79 
`(4) 
`’502 Patent, Claim 28 ........................................................88 
`(5) 
`’648 Patent, Claim 12 ........................................................98 
`(6) 
`’648 Patent, Claims 24 and 30 .........................................100 
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .......................................103 
`Lumidigm in View of Seiko 131 and Cramer Render
`(1) 
`Obvious All Asserted Claims...........................................103 
`Lumidigm in View of Webster Render Obvious ’502 Claim
`22......................................................................................120 
`Lumidigm in view of Seiko 131, Cramer, and Webster
`Render Obvious Claim 22 ................................................124 
`Lumidigm in View of Webster and Apple ’047 Render
`Obvious ’502 claim 28 .....................................................128 
`Lumidigm in View of Seiko 131, Cramer, Webster, and
`Apple ’047 Render Obvious ’502 Claim 28 ....................134 
`d. 
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................140 
`2. 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................147 
`Unenforceability ..................................................................................................153 
`1. 
`Prosecution Laches ..................................................................................153 
`2. 
`Unclean Hands .........................................................................................158 
`
`(2) 
`
`(3) 
`
`(4) 
`
`(5) 
`
`V. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,687,745 .......................................................................................159 
`A. 
`Level of Skill of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................163 
`B. 
`Claim Construction (“Second Shape” Claims 1, 20) ...........................................163 
`C. 
`Noninfringement ..................................................................................................164 
`1. 
`The
`Does Not Receive Light Having the “First Shape” That
`Was Emitted By the “Light-Emitting” Diodes” [1B], [20B] ...................165 
`
`- iii -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complainants’ expert’s test images confirm that
`
`
`.............................................................................................167 
`Complainants and their expert have failed to show that
`
`
`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`d. 
`
`
`.............................................................................................169 
`Is Not Configured To Change the Shape of the Light It
`Receives Into a “Second Shape” [1B], [20B] ..........................................170 
`a. 
` and does not change light shape ...........171 
`b. 
`Dr. Madisetti’s testing images confirm that
` does
`not change the shape of light emitted by an LED ........................171 
`Complainants and Dr. Madisetti Have Not Proven Indirect
`Infringement or Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ..........173 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................173 
`1. 
`No Patent-Practicing Article Existed as of the Complaint .......................174 
`2. 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles Do Not Practice Claim 18 ........................175 
`a. 
`The Alleged ’745 DI Articles Lack “A Light Diffusing
`Material Configured To Be Positioned Between The
`Plurality Of Light-Emitting Diodes…” [15B] .............................175 
`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] ..............................................................176 
`Invalidity ..............................................................................................................178 
`1. 
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................178 
`a. 
`State of the Art .............................................................................178 
`b. 
`Series 0 Renders Claim 9 and Claim 27 Obvious ........................178 
`(1) 
`Claim 9 .............................................................................179 
`(2) 
`Claim 27 ...........................................................................184 
`Iwamiya In View of Sarantos Render Claim 9 Obvious ..............186 
`Iwamiya In View of Sarantos and Venkatraman Render
`Claims 18 and 27 Obvious ...........................................................193 
`e. 
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ....................199 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................201 
`a. 
`Claims 1 and 20 Lack Written Description ..................................201 
`b. 
`Claim 15 is Indefinite ...................................................................202 
`Unenforceability (Prosecution Laches) ................................................................204 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`- iv -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,761,127 .........................................................................................205 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................209 
`B. 
`Agreed-Upon Claim Construction: “Plurality of Operating Wavelengths”
`(Claim 7) ..............................................................................................................209 
`Claim Term ..............................................................................................209 
`Agreed-Upon Construction ......................................................................209 
`“plurality of operating wavelengths” .......................................................209 
`“two or more operating wavelengths” .....................................................209 
`Noninfringement ..................................................................................................209 
`1. 
`State of the Art .........................................................................................209 
`2. 
`Claim 9 of the ’127 Patent .......................................................................212 
`3. 
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Have The Claimed “Thermal
`Mass” [7A], [7B], [7D], [7F] ...................................................................215 
`a. 
`Complainants failed to show the Accused Apple Watches
`have a “thermal mass” .................................................................218 
`The Accused Apple Watches Do Not Determine A “Bulk
`Temperature” [7F] ...................................................................................219 
`a. 
`Complainants failed to show the Accused Apple Watches
`measure a “bulk temperature for the thermal mass” ....................222 
`No Domestic Industry – “Technical Prong” ........................................................224 
`1. 
`Complainants’ “Current Rainbow Sensors” Do Not Practice Claim
`9................................................................................................................226 
`a. 
`No “Thermal Mass” (Limitation 7[A]) ........................................226 
`b. 
`No “Bulk Temperature” (Limitation 7[E]) ..................................229 
`Complainants’ “Early Rainbow Sensors” Do Not Practice Claim 9 .......230 
`a. 
`No “Thermal Mass” (Limitation 7[A]) ........................................230 
`b. 
`No “Bulk Temperature” (Limitation 7[E]) ..................................232 
`3. 
`No Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement or Indirect Infringement ........232 
`Invalidity ..............................................................................................................232 
`1. 
`Invalidity Based on Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................233 
`a. 
`Mendelson in View of Webster Render Claim 9 Obvious ..........233 
`b. 
`Yamada in View of Noguchi Render Claim 9 Obvious ..............239 
`No Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................244 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`VII.  DOMESTIC INDUSTRY – ECONOMIC PRONG ........................................................245 
`A. 
`Lack of Significant Investment in Plant and Equipment .....................................245 
`1. 
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................245 
`a. 
`Complainants’ Source Appendices Are Unreliable. ....................245 
`
`- v -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`f. 
`
`2. 
`
`Complainants Improperly Rely on Post-Complaint
`Evidence. ......................................................................................248 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated. ...............249 
`(1) 
` Product Development ...............................249 
`(2)  Manufacturing ..................................................................250 
`(3) 
`Clinical Lab, Quality, and R&D ......................................252 
`Complainants Have Failed to Demonstrate “Significance”
`in an Appropriate Context. ...........................................................253 
`Complainants Improperly Aggregated Domestic Industry
`Expenditures. ...............................................................................256 
`Complainants’ Claim of a Domestic Industry “in the
`Process of Being Established” Is Not Supported by the
`Evidentiary Record. .....................................................................258 
`Rainbow Sensors ......................................................................................260 
`a. 
`Claimed Expenditures Are Not Tied to Article(s) Identified
`Under the Technical Prong. .........................................................261 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Based On
`Unreliable Evidence and Allocations. ..........................................262 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated. ...............263 
`(1) 
`R&D Facilities – 52 Discovery and 50 Parker .................263 
`(2) 
`..................................................................263 
`(3) 
` ..............................264 
`Complainants Have Failed to Demonstrate “Significance”
`in an Appropriate Context. ...........................................................264 
`Lack of Significant Employment of Labor or Capital .........................................265 
`1. 
`Masimo Watch .........................................................................................265 
`a. 
`Complainants’ Source Appendices Are Unreliable. ....................265 
`b. 
`Complainants Improperly Rely on Post-Complaint
`Evidence. ......................................................................................266 
`Complainants Improperly Rely on Non-Qualifying
`Expenditures. ...............................................................................266 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated. ...............267 
`R&D Labor:
`(1) 
` ...............................267 
`(2)  Manufacturing, Clinical Lab, Quality Labor ...................268 
`(3) 
`Executive Labor ...............................................................269 
`(4) 
`Customer Support Labor ..................................................270 
`(5) 
` ......................................................270 
`(6) 
`R&D labor: “Watch” ........................................................271 
`(7) 
` .............................................271 
`(8) 
`HR Recruiting Labor........................................................272 
`Complainants Have Failed to Demonstrate “Significance”
`in an Appropriate Context. ...........................................................272 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`- vi -
`
`B. 
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f. 
`
`g. 
`
`2. 
`
`Complainants Improperly Aggregated Domestic Industry
`Expenditures. ...............................................................................274 
`Complainants’ Claim of a Domestic Industry “in the
`Process of Being Established” Is Not Supported by the
`Evidentiary Record. .....................................................................275 
`Rainbow Sensors ......................................................................................275 
`a. 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Based On
`Unreliable Evidence And Allocations. ........................................275 
`Complainants’ Claimed Expenditures Are Overstated. ...............275 
`(1)  Masimo R&D Labor ........................................................275 
`(2) 
`Cercacor R&D Labor .......................................................276 
`(3)  Manufacturing Labor .......................................................277 
`(4) 
`277 
`
`Complainants Improperly Rely on
`. .................................................................277 
`Complainants Have Failed To Demonstrate “Significance”
`in an Appropriate Context. ...........................................................278 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`VIII.  REMEDY AND BONDING............................................................................................279 
`A. 
`Any Remedy Should Be Narrowly Tailored To Permit Service, Repair,
`and Replacement For Existing Customers and Contain a Certification
`Provision. .............................................................................................................279 
`No Bond Should Be Imposed During The Presidential Review Period. .............280 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`01 Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................208, 211
`
`
`Certain Electrical Connectors and Cages, Components Thereof, and Products
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1241, Initial Determination (Mar. 11,
`2022) ................................................................................................................................247
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................164, 213
`
`
`Cable Elec. Prods, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc.,
`770 F. 2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................................................................................143
`
`
`Cancer Research. Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................153
`
`
`Certain Bone Cements, Inv. No. 337-TA-1153, Comm’n Op. (Jan. 25, 2021) ...........................269
`
`Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1123, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 28, 2019) ..........................................................................253
`
`Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors, Inv. No. 337-TA-650,
`Comm’n Op. (Apr. 14, 2010) ............................................................................................18
`
`
`Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-1003,
`Comm’n Op. (Feb. 22, 2018) ...........................................................................................279
`
`Certain Digital Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-1059, Order No. 52 (Feb. 20, 2018) ..................19, 20
`
`Certain Digital Media Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-882,
`Initial Determination (July 7, 2014) .................................................................................251
`
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-701, Order No. 58 (Nov. 18, 2010) ......................20
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, Comm’n Op. (July 5, 2013) ...............279, 280
`
`Certain Electronic Stud Finders, Inv. No. 337-TA-1221,
`Comm’n Op. (Mar. 14, 2022) ..........................................................................................257
`
`
`Certain Infotainment Sys., Components Thereof, & Automobiles Containing the
`Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1119, 2019 WL 4744857 (Sept. 23, 2019) ..................................68
`
`- viii -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certain LED Lighting Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1081,
`Order No. 55 (Aug. 1, 2018) ............................................................................................261
`
`
`Certain Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Comm’n Op. (June 5, 2012) ............................279
`
`Certain Mobile Devices with Multifunction Emulators, Inv. No. 337-TA-1170,
`Order No. 19 (June 9, 2020) ..............................................................................................20
`
`Certain Movable Barrier Operator Sys. & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1118, 2019 WL 1773475 (Apr. 16, 2019) ...................................................................68
`
`Certain Road Construction Machines, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088, Order No. 30 (July
`26, 2018) ..........................................................................................................................258
`
`Certain Set-Top Boxes, Inv. No. 337-TA-454, Final Initial Determination, 2002
`WL 31556392 (June 21, 2002) ........................................................................................174
`
`Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components & Prods.
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097, Comm’n Op. (Jun. 29, 2018) .......................248
`
`Certain Stringed Musical Instruments, Inv. No. 337-TA-586,
`Comm’n Op. (May 16, 2008) ..........................................................................................266
`
`
`Certain Television Sets, Inv. No. 337-TA-910, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 30, 2015) ............................278
`
`Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1073,
`Comm’n Op. (Aug. 12, 2019) ............................................................................................19
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ...........................................................................................................40
`
`
`Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int’l Ltd.,
`910 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..........................................................................................160
`
`
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-2141,
`2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ...................................................149, 152, 203
`
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................159
`
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Tranquil Prospects, Ltd.,
`401 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................205
`
`
`Hyatt v. Hirshfeld,
`998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021)........................................................................................156
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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) ..........................................................................................................159
`
`Hyundai Elec. Indus. Co. v. USITC,
`
`899 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1990)........................................................................................279
`
`In re Bogese,
`303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................159
`
`
`In re Mihalich,
`980 F.2d 744 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..........................................................................................220
`
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.,
`290 U.S. 240 (1933) .........................................................................................................159
`
`
`Lelo Inc, v. ITC,
`786 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................267, 270, 278
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. ITC,
`731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................20, 261
`
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................40
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .........................................................................................................204
`
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................33
`
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................39
`
`
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................149, 203
`
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................145
`
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`552 F. Supp.3d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2021) ..............................................................................156
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................148
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................165
`
`
`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) ..................................................................158
`
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP,
`422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................156, 158, 206
`
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................145
`
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................228, 231, 232
`
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................143
`
`
`Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................248
`
`
`Yoon Ja Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................219, 227, 232
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(a) .................................................................................................18, 20, 225, 261
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`S. Rep. No. 1298, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 198 (1974) ....................................................................280
`
`- xi -
`
`MASIMO 2050
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01465
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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