throbber

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WEARABLE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES WITH ECG FUNCTIONALITY
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1266
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMMISSION OPINION
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`II. Background ................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Procedural History................................................................................................. 4
`B. Overview of the Technology ................................................................................. 8
`C.
`The Accused Products ........................................................................................... 9
`D. Domestic Industry Products ................................................................................ 10
`III. Commission Review of the ID ................................................................................... 10
`IV. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 11
`A.
`Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement.................................... 11
`1.
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................. 11
`2.
`Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Under
`Subsection (C) ................................................................................................. 15
`Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Under
`Subsection (B) ................................................................................................. 23
`The ID’s Patent Eligibility Findings Under 35 U.S.C § 101 .............................. 27
`B.
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................. 27
`1.
`2. Whether the ID Erred in Finding Claim 12 of the ’941 Patent Patentable
`Under Alice ...................................................................................................... 28
`3. Whether Claims 16 and 17 of the ’499 Patent Are Patentable Under Alice ... 35
`C.
`The ID’s Findings with Respect to Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C § 103 ........... 40
`1.
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................. 40
`2. Analysis ........................................................................................................... 42
`V. REMEDY ................................................................................................................... 47
`A.
`Limited Exclusion Order ..................................................................................... 48
`1
`
`3.
`
`
`
`

`

`B. Cease and Desist Order ....................................................................................... 51
`C.
`The Public Interest .............................................................................................. 52
`1. Apple Submission ............................................................................................ 54
`2. AliveCor Submission ....................................................................................... 63
`3. OUII Submission ............................................................................................. 67
`4. Analysis ........................................................................................................... 70
`D. Bond .................................................................................................................... 82
`E.
`Suspension of Remedial Orders .......................................................................... 85
`VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 87
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 22, 2022, the Commission determined to review in part the final initial
`
`determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on June 27, 2022.
`
`87 Fed. Reg. 58819-21 (Sept. 28, 2022). On review, the Commission has determined to affirm,
`
`with modifications, the ID’s finding that there has been a violation of section 337 of the Tariff
`
`Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Having found a violation of section 337, the
`
`Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order as set
`
`forth below. The Commission finds that the public interest does not preclude the issuance of
`
`remedial orders. The Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of $2 per imported
`
`article is required for infringing products imported during the period of Presidential review.1
`
`The Commission, however, has determined to suspend enforcement of the orders, including the
`
`bond provision, pending final resolution of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decisions finding all asserted patent claims
`
`unpatentable. See Apple, Inc. v. AliveCor, Inc., IPR2021-00970, Patent 9,572,499, Final Written
`
`Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable (Dec. 6, 2022); Apple, Inc. v.
`
`AliveCor, Inc., IPR2021-00971, Patent 10,595,731, Final Written Decision Determining All
`
`Challenged Claims Unpatentable (Dec. 6, 2022); Apple, Inc. v. AliveCor, Inc., IPR2021-00972,
`
`Patent 10,638,941, Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`
`(Dec. 6, 2022) (collectively, “Final Written Decisions” or “FWDs”).
`
`This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support of that determination. The
`
`Commission adopts the remainder of the ID that is not inconsistent with this opinion.
`
`
`1 Commissioners Schmidtlein and Stayin disagree with the Commission’s determination
`regarding the amount of the bond required for infringing products imported during the period of
`Presidential review as provided in section (V)(D) of the Commission’s Opinion concerning
`bond. See infra note 41.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On May 26, 2021, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed
`
`by AliveCor, Inc. of Mountain View, California (“AliveCor” or “ALC”). 86 Fed. Reg. 28382
`
`(May 26, 2021). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff
`
`Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for
`
`importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable electronic
`
`devices with ECG2 functionality and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or
`
`more of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731 (“the ’731 patent”); claims 1-23 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,638,941 (“the ’941 patent”); and claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,572,499 (“the ’499 patent”). Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation named Apple Inc.
`
`of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) as the sole respondent. The Office of Unfair Import
`
`Investigations (“OUII”) is named as a party in this investigation. Id.
`
`On February 23, 2022, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting AliveCor’s
`
`motion to terminate the investigation as to (1) claims 1-4, 6-14, and 18-20 of the ’499 patent;
`
`(2) claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 17-30 of the ’731 patent; and (3) claims 1-11, 14, 15, 17, and
`
`18 of the ’941 patent based upon withdrawal of allegations from the complaint as to those
`
`claims. Order No. 16 (Feb. 23, 2022), unreviewed by Notice (Mar. 18, 2022).
`
`The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from March 28-April 1, 2022, and received post-
`
`hearing briefs thereafter.
`
`
`2 ECG stands for electrocardiogram.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`On June 27, 2022, the ALJ issued the final initial determination (“ID”), finding a
`
`violation of section 337 as to the ’941 and ’731 patents, and no violation as to the ’499 patent.3
`
`The ID found that the parties do not contest personal jurisdiction, and that the Commission has in
`
`rem jurisdiction over the accused products. ID at 18. The ID further found that the importation
`
`requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B) is satisfied. Id. (citing CX-0904C (Apple stipulating
`
`that it imports the accused products into the United States)). Regarding the ’941 patent, the ID
`
`found that AliveCor has proven infringement of the asserted claims, claims 12, 13, 19, and 20-
`
`23, and that Apple failed to show that any of the asserted claims are invalid. Id. at 30-45, 60-98,
`
`187-88. For the ’731 patent, the ID found that AliveCor has proven infringement of the asserted
`
`claims, claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 16, but that Apple has proven that claims 1, 8, 12, and 16
`
`are invalid for obviousness. Id. at 105-108, 113-127, 188. For the ’499 patent, the ID found that
`
`AliveCor failed to prove infringement of the asserted claims, claims 16 and 17, and that claim 17
`
`is invalid for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 129-138, 140-152,
`
`188. Finally, the ID found that AliveCor has proven the existence of a domestic industry that
`
`practices the asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). Id. at 152-180, 188. The ID
`
`included the ALJ’s recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”). The RD
`
`recommended that, should the Commission find a violation, issuance of a limited exclusion order
`
`and a cease and desist order would be appropriate. ID/RD at 190-193. The RD also
`
`recommended imposing no bond for covered products imported during the period of Presidential
`
`review. Id. at 194-95.
`
`On July 11, 2022, Apple filed a petition for review of the final ID and AliveCor filed a
`
`
`3 The ALJ issued a corrected final ID on July 26, 2022, correcting the table of contents.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`combined petition and contingent petition for review.4 On July 19, 2022, the private parties and
`
`OUII’s investigative attorney filed responses to the petitions.5
`
`On September 22, 2022, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part. 87
`
`Fed. Reg. 58819-21 (Sept. 28, 2022). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the
`
`final ID’s invalidity findings, including patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all
`
`three patents. Id. The Commission requested briefing on certain issues under review and on
`
`remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id.
`
`On October 6, 2022, the parties filed initial submissions in response to the Commission’s
`
`request for briefing.6 On October 14, 2022,7 the parties filed reply submissions.8 On October
`
`
`4 See Respondent Apple Inc’s Petition for Review of the Initial Determination on
`Violation of Section 337 (“Apple Pet.”); Complainant AliveCor, Inc.’s Combined Petition for
`Review and Contingent Petition for Review of the Initial Determination (“AliveCor Pet.”).
`
`
`5 See Respondent Apple Inc.’s Response to the Complainant’s Petition for Review of the
`Initial Determination (“Apple Rep.”); Complainant AliveCor Inc.’s Response to Respondent
`Apple Inc.’s Petition for Review of the Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337
`(“AliveCor Rep.”); Combined Response of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations Response
`to the Private Parties’ Petitions for Review of the Final Initial Determination on Violation
`(“OUII Rep.”).
`
`
`6 See Respondent Apple Inc.’s Opening Brief in Response to the Commission’s Request
`for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and
`Bonding (“Apple Sub.”); Complainant AliveCor, Inc.’s Submission in Response to the
`Commission’s September 22, 2022 Notice of a Commission Determination to Review in Part
`(“AliveCor Sub.”); Brief of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations on the Issues Under
`Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (“OUII Sub.”).
`
`
`7 On October 12, 2022, the Chair granted the parties’ request to extend the due date for
`their reply briefs by one day. See Commission Letter Granting Request for Extension of Time to
`File Replies to the Commission’s Request for Written Submissions; Certain Wearable Electronic
`Devices with ECG Functionality and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1266 (Oct. 12, 2022).
`
` 8
`
` See Respondent Apple Inc.’s Reply Brief to AliveCor and OUII’s Response to the
`Commission’s Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`21, 2022, Apple moved for leave to file a sur-reply to AliveCor’s reply submission.9 On October
`
`24, 2022, AliveCor filed an opposition.10 OUII filed a response in opposition on November 2,
`
`2022.11 The Commission has determined to reject Apple’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply to
`
`AliveCor’s reply submission. The Commission finds that Apple has not shown AliveCor’s reply
`
`submission contains errors that warrant a sur-reply.
`
`On December 7, 2022, Apple filed an emergency motion, asking “the Commission to
`
`suspend any remedial orders or, in the alternative, extend the December 12, 2022 Target Date of
`
`its Final Determination and stay all proceedings prior to issuance of any Final Determination
`
`pending final resolution of any appeal of the PTAB’s decisions.”12 Apple Emergency Motion at
`
`
`Public Interest, and Bonding (“Apple R.Sub.”); Complainant AliveCor, Inc.’s Reply Submission
`in Response to the Commission’s September 22, 2022 Notice of a Commission Determination to
`Review in Part (“AliveCor R.Sub.”); Reply Brief of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (“OUII R.Sub.”).
`
`
`9 See Respondent Apple Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief to AliveCor’s
`Reply to the Commission’s Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on
`Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding.
`
`10 See AliveCor’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to
`AliveCor’s Reply to the Commission’s Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under
`Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding.
`
`11 See Response of the Unfair Import Investigations to Respondent Apple Inc.’s Motion
`for Leave to file Sur-Reply Brief to AliveCor’s Reply to the Commission’s Request for Written
`Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding.
`
`12 See Respondent Apple Inc.’s Emergency Motion to Suspend any Remedy or Extend
`the Target Date and Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of any Appeal of the Patent Office’s
`Decision that United States Patent Nos. 10,638,941, 10,595,731, and 9,572,499 Are
`Unpatentable (“Apple Emergency Motion”).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`1. On December 9, 2022, AliveCor filed an opposition to Apple’s motion.13 On December 16,
`
`2022, OUII filed a response to the motion.14
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the Technology
`
`The technology at issue generally relates to systems, devices, and methods for monitoring
`
`cardiac health and managing cardiac disease. ID at 3.
`
`The ’941 patent entitled, “Discordance Monitoring,” issued on May 5, 2020. ’941 patent
`
`(JX-0003). The patent describes systems, devices, and methods that can be used to
`
`“conveniently sense the presence of an intermittent arrhythmia in an individual.” ’941 patent,
`
`Abstract. The systems, devices, and methods can also “be configured to sense an
`
`electrocardiogram.” Id.
`
`The ’731 patent entitled, “Methods and Systems for Arrhythmia Tracking and Scoring,”
`
`issued on March 24, 2020. ’731 patent (JX-0002). The patent describes “a dashboard centered
`
`around arrhythmia or atrial fibrillation.” ’731 patent, Abstract. “The dashboard includes a heart
`
`or cardiac health score that can be calculated in response to data from the user such as their ECG
`
`and other personal information and cardiac health influencing factors.” Id. “The dashboard also
`
`provides to the user recommendations or goals, such as daily goals, for the user to meet and
`
`thereby improve their heart or cardiac health score.” Id.
`
`The ’449 patent, also entitled, “Methods and Systems for Arrhythmia Tracking and
`
`Scoring,” issued on February 21, 2017. ’449 patent (JX-0001). The patent also describes “a
`
`
`13 See AliveCor’s Opposition to Apple’s Emergency Motion to Suspend any Remedy or
`Extend the Target Date and Stay Proceedings (“AliveCor Opposition”).
`
`14 See Response of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations to Respondent Apple Inc.’s
`Emergency Motion to Suspend any Remedy or Extend the Target Date and Stay Proceedings
`Pending Resolution of any Appeal of the Patent Office’s Decision that United State Patent Nos.
`10,638,941, and 9,572,499 Are Unpatentable (“OUII Reply to Emergency Motion”).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`dashboard centered around arrhythmia or atrial fibrillation.” ’449 patent, Abstract. “The
`
`dashboard includes a heart or cardiac health score that can be calculated in response to data from
`
`the user such as their ECG and other personal information and cardiac health influencing
`
`factors.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`The accused products consist of four generations of Apple smartwatches:
`
`Apple Model(s)
`
`Category
`
`A1975, A1976, A1977, A1978
`
`A2092, A2093, A2094, A2095
`
`A2291, A2292, A2293, A2294
`
`A2473, A2474, A2475, A2477
`
`
`
`Series 4
`
`Series 5
`
`Series 6
`
`Series 7
`
`ID at 6. The parties explained that the “Apple Watch Series 6 is sufficiently representative from
`
`a hardware standpoint of all other Accused Products” and they describe the “salient features of
`
`the Accused Products via the Series 6 as ‘a motion/activity sensor known as an accelerometer, a
`
`photoplethysmography (‘PPG’)15 sensor, an electrocardiogram (‘ECG’) sensor, a display screen,
`
`a processor, and memory.’” ID at 6 (citing Hr’g Tr. (Jafari) at 303:19-24; JX-0221C (Waydo) at
`
`207:10-14, 208:14-209:11; CX-0107). The ID further found that the “software running on these
`
`devices is also important, taking the form of Apple’s operating system, WatchOS” and that “[a]s
`
`with hardware, the parties have agreed that version 7.6.2 of WatchOS is representative of all
`
`other versions that contain the diagnostic tools implicated by the Asserted Claims.” Id.
`
`
`15 PPG is used to sense the amount of oxygen in the blood.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Domestic Industry Products
`
`The domestic industry products include “wearable electronic devices, being developed,
`
`manufactured, and/or sold by AliveCor under the tradenames KardiaBand System, [[
`
` ]].” ID at 4. “Each product includes,
`
`‘among other things, a smartwatch, activity sensor, PPG sensor, and ECG sensor.’” Id. at 4-5.
`
`“The KardiaBand System (‘KBS’) comprises the KardiaBand watch band, and an Apple Watch
`
`(Series 1, 2, 3) with Watch OS 5.0 or earlier running a program called KardiaApp.” Id. at 5
`
`(citing Hr’g Tr. (Jafari) at 385:16-386:15). Complainant relies on its KBS product for its
`
`domestic industry that exists and relies on its [[ ]] products for its domestic industry in
`
`the process of being established.
`
`III. COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE ID
`
`When the Commission reviews an initial determination, in whole or in part, it reviews the
`
`determination de novo. Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-908, Comm’n Op. at 4 (May 1, 2015). Upon review, the “Commission has ‘all the powers
`
`which it would have in making the initial determination,’ except where the issues are limited on
`
`notice or by rule.” Certain Flash Memory Circuits & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-382, USITC Pub. No. 3046, Comm’n Op. at 9-10 (July 1997) (quoting Certain Acid-Washed
`
`Denim Garments & Accessories, Inv. No. 337-TA-324, Comm’n Op. at 5 (Nov. 1992)). With
`
`respect to the issues under review, “the Commission may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside or
`
`remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the initial determination of the administrative
`
`law judge.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c). The Commission also “may take no position on specific
`
`issues or portions of the initial determination,” and “may make any finding or conclusions that in
`
`its judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding.” Id.; see also Beloit Corp. v.
`
`Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement
`
`The Commission determined to review the economic prong of the domestic industry
`
`requirement for all three patents and asked the parties for briefing. 87 Fed. Reg. 58819-20 (Sept.
`
`28, 2022).
`
`On review, the Commission has determined to affirm the ID’s findings that AliveCor
`
`failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to a domestic
`
`industry in the process of being established, and an existing industry under subsections (A) and
`
`(B), but proved the existence of a domestic industry under subsection (C). With respect to the
`
`industry in the process of being established and an existing industry under subsection (A), the
`
`Commission affirms the ID for the reasons stated therein. Regarding subsections (B) and (C),
`
`the Commission affirms the ID as modified below.
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`In patent-based proceedings under section 337, a complainant must establish that a
`
`domestic industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in the process of
`
`being established.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). Under Commission precedent, this domestic
`
`industry requirement consists of an “economic prong” and a “technical prong.” See Alloc, Inc. v.
`
`Intl Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To satisfy the “technical prong,” the
`
`complainant must establish that it practices at least one claim of each of the asserted patents.
`
`Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-524, Order No. 40 at
`
`17-18 (Apr. 11, 2005). To satisfy the “economic prong,” paragraph (3) of section 337(a)
`
`provides:
`
`For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States shall be considered
`to exist if there is in the United States, with respect to the articles protected by the
`patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design concerned –
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
`
`(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
`
`
`
`(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering,
`research and development, or licensing.
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). Expenditures in each of the above three categories under section
`
`337(a)(3) must “pertain to the complainant’s industry with respect to the articles protected by the
`
`asserted IP rights.” See, e.g., Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners,
`
`and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-910, Comm’n Op. at 68 (Oct. 30, 2015); Certain
`
`Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Prods. Containing
`
`the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-921, Comm’n Op. at 40 (Jan. 6, 2016).
`
`Under subsection (C), a domestic industry will be found to exist if, “with respect to the
`
`articles protected by the patent,” a complainant can show “substantial investment in its
`
`exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.” 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337(a)(3)(C) (emphasis added). For this provision, the Federal Circuit has interpreted “its” to
`
`mean the patent (or other enumerated IP right in subsections 337(a)(1)(B)-(E)), so there must be
`
`a nexus between the domestic investments and the exploitation of the asserted patents, beyond
`
`showing that those investments relate to the protected domestic industry (“DI”) articles.
`
`InterDigital Communications, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295, 1297-1301 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013).16 To establish the nexus, the complainant must show the connection between its
`
`
`16 The ID states that “[u]nlike subsections (A) and (B), where a connection is made
`between an alleged investment and a patent-practicing product, a subsection (C) analysis requires
`a connection between the R&D investment and the asserted patents (i.e., nexus).” ID at 170
`(citation omitted). We clarify that while subsection (C) requires a nexus between the claimed
`investments and the asserted patents, the requirement that investments be “with respect to articles
`protected by the patent” applies with respect to subsections (A), (B), and (C). See 19 U.S.C.
`§ 1337(a)(3); see also InterDigital, 707 F.3d at 1298 (“Thus, just as the ‘plant or equipment’
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`investments and the patented aspect(s) of the invention that it is exploiting. See Certain
`
`Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-859, Comm’n Op.
`
`at 49-50 (Aug. 2014) (“As a matter of statutory construction, an investment in the article is not
`
`automatically an investment in the asserted patent.”). It is not enough for a complainant to assert
`
`that it generally conducts research and development, or that its R&D relates to non-patented
`
`features incorporated into articles that also practice the patent at issue. Id.
`
`Depending on the particular facts of a case, a complainant’s domestic industry with
`
`respect to articles protected by the asserted IP rights may extend beyond the protected article, to
`
`include those additional parts or components that are necessary to use or exploit the patented
`
`invention. See Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 737 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (explaining that “nothing in § 337 precludes a complainant from relying on investments or
`
`employment directed to significant components, specifically tailored for use in an article
`
`protected by the patent”). However, there may be investments that are too far removed from the
`
`articles protected by the asserted intellectual property rights to be considered part of the
`
`complainant’s domestic industry. See Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers
`
`and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-770, Comm’n Op. at 66 (Oct. 28, 2013) (“[W]e
`
`agree with the ALJ that the language of the patent is directed to the toy wand and not the toy
`
`wand plus the entire MagiQuest attraction.”). Nevertheless, for subsection (C), the focus
`
`remains on whether the claimed investments are related to the exploitation of the patent and
`
`whether those investments in the exploitation of the patent are substantial.
`
`
`referred to in subparagraph (A) must exist with respect to articles protected by the patent, such as
`by producing protected goods, the research and development or licensing activities referred to in
`subparagraph (C) must also exist with respect to articles protected by the patent, such as by
`licensing protected products.”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Whether a complainant satisfies the economic prong is not analyzed according to a rigid
`
`mathematical formula. Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm’n Op.
`
`at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007). The Commission decides the domestic industry requirement has been
`
`established in each investigation based on “an examination of the facts in each investigation, the
`
`article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Id. A complainant does not need to
`
`show any “minimum monetary expenditure,” and does not “need to define or quantify the
`
`industry itself in absolute mathematical terms.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`586, Comm’n Op. at 16-17 (May 16, 2008) (“A precise accounting [of the complainant’s
`
`domestic investments] is not necessary, as most people do not document their daily affairs in
`
`contemplation of possible litigation.”). The burden is on the complainant to show by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied. See Certain
`
`Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof, and Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-694, Comm’n Op. at 5 (July 22, 2011).
`
`To satisfy the domestic industry requirement, section 337(a)(3) requires that a
`
`complainant’s asserted investments must be “significant” or “substantial.” The Federal Circuit
`
`has held that “qualitative factors alone are insufficient” to show that domestic industry
`
`investments are significant or substantial. Lelo Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d 879, 885
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). The statute “requires a quantitative analysis to determine whether there is a
`
`‘significant’ [or ‘substantial’] increase or attribution by virtue of the claimant’s asserted
`
`commercial activity in the United States.” Id. at 883. “[T]he terms ‘significant’ and ‘substantial’
`
`refer to an increase in quantity, or to a benchmark in numbers.” Id. at 885; see also Certain
`
`Carburetors & Prods. Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm’n Op. at 15-
`
`16 (Oct. 28, 2019). While significance may not be established on qualitative evidence alone,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`“qualitative evidence may still be relied upon to support a finding that a complainant’s
`
`investments are significant.” Carburetors, Comm’n Op. at 24; see also id. at 23 (“There may be
`
`facts and circumstances where, based on an assessment of quantitative information, it remains
`
`unclear whether a complainant’s investments are significant or not. In such cases, resorting to
`
`qualitative factors that may indicate significance could be relevant to the evaluation.”). In this
`
`regard, the Commission considers the “nature and significance” of a complainant’s activities
`
`with respect to the protected articles. Certain Printing and Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`690, Comm’n Op. at 30 (Feb. 17, 2011). The Commission may consider, inter alia, whether the
`
`“activities were important to the articles protected by the asserted patents in the context of the
`
`company’s operations, the marketplace, or the industry in question, or whether complainant’s
`
`undertakings had a direct bearing on the practice of the patent” or “whether and to what extent []
`
`domestic activities added value to the imported products.” Id.
`
`2. Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement Under Subsection
`(C)
`
`a)
`
`Background
`
`AliveCor is a U.S. company based in California that designs and develops wearable
`
`electronic devices to help diagnose heart conditions. See Compl. at ¶ 11; CDX-005C.13; Tr.
`
`(Albert) at 53:22-54:20; CDX-005C.29; Tr. (Albert) at 77:24-78:14. AliveCor developed the
`
`inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents in the United States and introduced the “technology to
`
`consumers through the KBS, a system that included an app and watchband accessory for the
`
`Apple Watch,” clearing the KBS with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for use
`
`in connection with the Apple Watch. ID at 4-5; Tr. (Albert) 83:8-85:19; 199:3-201:21; CDX-
`
`0005C.34-36. There is no dispute that the KBS domestic industry product was developed in the
`
`United States and the [[ ]] products are also being developed in the United States.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Although AliveCor ceased to manufacture and sell the KBS product in 2018, AliveCor
`
`continued to invest in the technology of the patents through the date of the complaint filing.
`
`Under Commission precedent, past expenditures in R&D can be counted towards establishing a
`
`domestic industry in a product that exists but has been discontinued, like the KBS, if there are
`
`continuing investments. See, e.g., Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`921, Comm’n Op., at 59 (Jan. 6, 2016) (crediting “labor and capital expenditures related to . . .
`
`software updates” used in a discontinued but practicing product), affirmed, Hyosung TNS Inc. v.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 926 F.3d 1353, 1361-2 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[P]ast expenditures may be
`
`considered to support a domestic industry claim so long as those investments pertain to the
`
`complainant’s industry with respect to the articles protected by the asserted [intellectual
`
`property] rights and the complainant is continuing to make qualifying investments at the time the
`
`complaint is filed.”).
`
`AliveCor Established the Nexus Requirement for Both Past
`b)
`Investments and Continuing Investments
`
`AliveCor has established both (1) that its past investments in R&D were directed to each
`
`of the asserted patents to develop the KBS and to use the technology of the patents to develop
`
`[[ ]]; and (

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket