Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 182 Page ID
` #:5950
`
`Joseph R. Re (Bar No. 134479)
`joseph.re@knobbe.com
`Stephen C. Jensen (Bar No. 149894)
`steve.jensen@knobbe.com
`Perry D. Oldham (Bar No. 216016)
`perry.oldham@knobbe.com
`Stephen W. Larson (Bar No. 240844)
`stephen.larson@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404 Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`Adam B. Powell (Bar No. 272725)
`adam.powell@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`12790 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 707-4000 Facsimile: (858) 707-4001
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc.
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`Case No. 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR
`(1) PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`(2) TRADE SECRET
`MISAPPROPRIATION
`(3) CORRECTION OF
`INVENTORSHIP AND
`(4) OWNERSHIP OF PATENTS
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Hon. James V. Selna
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`a Delaware corporation; and
`CERCACOR LABORATORIES, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., a California corporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1037
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 182 Page ID
` #:5951
`
`
`Plaintiffs MASIMO CORPORATION (“Masimo”) and CERCACOR
`
`LABORATIES, INC. (“Cercacor”) hereby complain of Defendant APPLE INC.
`(“Apple”), and allege as follows:
`I. THE PARTIES
`1.
`Plaintiff Masimo is a Delaware corporation having its principal
`place of business at 52 Discovery, Irvine, California 92618.
`2.
`Plaintiff Cercacor is a Delaware corporation having its principal
`place of business at 15750 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, California 92618.
`3.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Apple is a California
`corporation having a principal place of business at One Apple Park Way,
`Cupertino, California, 95014.
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`4.
`This civil action includes claims for patent infringement arising
`under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, et seq., more
`particularly, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. This civil action includes claims for
`correction of inventorship of certain United States patents arising under the
`patent law of the United States, more particularly 35 U.S.C. § 256. This
`Complaint further alleges trade secret misappropriation and seeks a declaration
`of ownership of certain patents and patent applications.
`5.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims 1-12 and 14-
`18 pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and has at least
`supplemental jurisdiction over claims 13 and 19-24 pursuant to at least 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), including because, as alleged in more detail below, they are
`sufficiently related to the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction
`that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
`United States Constitution.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-1-
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 182 Page ID
` #:5952
`
`
`6.
`Apple has its principal place of business in California. Apple is
`subject to personal jurisdiction in California and has committed the acts
`complained of in this Judicial District.
`7.
`Venue is proper in the Southern Division of the Central District of
`California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) with respect to patent infringement
`because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the County
`of Orange within the Central District of California and committed acts of
`infringement in this Judicial District. Defendant also committed acts of
`misappropriation in this Judicial District. Inventive contributions to the patents
`and patent application as to which Plaintiffs seek correction of inventorship
`and/or declarations of ownership also took place in this Judicial District. Thus,
`venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) because a substantial part of
`the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this Judicial
`District.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`8.
`This action seeks relief for the theft of Plaintiffs’ highly
`confidential information and trade secrets, and infringement of Masimo’s
`patents by Defendant, correction of inventorship, and ownership of patents
`assigned to or filed by Apple on subject matter that belongs to Plaintiffs.
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`9. Masimo is a medical technology company that revolutionized non-
`invasive monitoring of physiological parameters, such as pulse rate, arterial
`oxygen saturation and many others.
`10. Most of these parameters are measured using light that is
`transmitted through the body tissue. The received light, that has been attenuated
`by the various components of the body tissue, including the blood, is known in
`the industry as a photoplethysmograph or “PPG.” The transmission and receipt
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-2-
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 182 Page ID
` #:5953
`
`
`of this light is typically accomplished through a sensor that is applied to a body
`part such as a finger, arm, toe, forehead or ear.
`11. Before Masimo, non-invasive measurements from the PPG were
`plagued by unreliability, often when the measurement was needed most, due to
`the person moving or having low peripheral blood flow (known as “low
`perfusion”). The industry had essentially given up on solving these problems,
`concluding they were largely unsolvable. In the medical context, clinicians had
`to live with the results – patient monitors gave excessive false alarms, froze
`their measurements for prolonged periods of time despite potential changes in
`the physiological parameter (e.g., oxygen saturation or pulse rate), delayed
`notification of alarms due to long averaging times of sensor data, produced
`inaccurate measurements, or were unable to obtain data on the most critical
`patients and babies who cannot be instructed to stay still. Masimo’s pioneering
`technology, known as Masimo Signal Extraction Technology (“Masimo SET”),
`solved this problem and dramatically improved the reliability of monitoring and
`reporting physiological signals derived from the PPG.
`12. Following its initial success with Masimo SET, Masimo invested
`heavily in developing additional breakthrough measurement technologies, such
`as non-invasively measuring
`total hemoglobin, carboxyhemoglobin, and
`methemoglobin. Masimo has continued to innovate, succeeding where others
`have consistently failed. Masimo was the first, and remains the only, company
`delivering these game-changing technologies to hospitals in the United States.
`Use of Masimo’s technology in the clinical setting has been proven to reduce
`blindness in premature infants, detect congenital heart disease in infants, save
`lives on the general care floor and post-surgery, and improve transfusion
`management, while saving money.
`13. From its inception, Masimo has continuously developed cutting-
`edge noninvasive patient monitoring technologies. Masimo sought and received
`-3-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 5 of 182 Page ID
` #:5954
`
`
`numerous U.S. patents for many of its inventions. Masimo’s revolutionary
`technology was a key to its gaining significant market praise and penetration.
`After introduction into the market, many competitors, much larger than
`Masimo, used Masimo’s technology without a license, resulting in patent
`infringement lawsuits that ultimately confirmed the validity of Masimo’s
`innovations. Masimo also maintains some technology as trade secrets. Masimo
`also closely guards its future product and market plans. Only select employees
`have knowledge of and access to these guarded secrets.
`14. Masimo’s innovations also include important advances in sensor
`technologies that work together as part of Masimo’s system and algorithms.
`Masimo’s sensors are integral to the success of the revolutionary technologies
`Masimo has developed.
`15.
`In 1998, Masimo spun certain technologies off into a new
`company, Masimo Laboratories, Inc. or “Masimo Labs,” to further research and
`develop the technologies. The name of the company was later changed to
`Cercacor Laboratories Inc. or “Cercacor.” Cercacor and Masimo have a cross-
`license agreement
`to
`facilitate confidential collaboration between
`the
`companies. Cercacor is not owned by Masimo.
`16. Like Masimo, Cercacor is an innovator of non-invasive monitoring
`technologies. Cercacor is on the frontline of understanding how measuring,
`tracking, and analyzing physiological parameters can impact pre-diabetic and
`diabetic patients, sports training and performance and overall health and
`wellness principally in the consumer market.
` Cercacor continued the
`development that started at Masimo on non-invasive total hemoglobin (SpHb®),
`methemoglobin (SpMet®), and carboxyhemoglobin (SpCO®) and other non-
`invasive physiological parameters.
`17. Leading hospitals around the world use Cercacor technology
`licensed to Masimo and sold under the name Masimo rainbow SET. Like
`-4-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 6 of 182 Page ID
` #:5955
`
`
`Masimo, Cercacor also maintains some technology as trade secrets, and
`Cercacor closely guards its future product and market plans. Only select
`employees have knowledge of and access to these guarded secrets.
`18. Plaintiffs carefully guard
`the secrecy of
`their confidential
`information and documents. For example, Plaintiffs have policies regarding
`labeling confidential information and documents as “CONFIDENTIAL AND
`PROPRIETARY.” They also restrict these documents and information from
`disclosure to third parties and employees on a need-to-know basis. Plaintiffs
`also have policies in place regarding the use of computers and related equipment
`that govern how their computer systems may be used. Those policies also
`govern the protection of Plaintiffs’ confidential information. Plaintiffs have
`document management systems that restrict access to confidential documents to
`only those employees with proper security credentials and a need for access.
`Plaintiffs also require employees to sign agreements precluding the employees
`from disclosing or making use of any confidential information except as
`authorized by Plaintiffs and as necessary for the performance of the employees’
`duties. Plaintiffs also require third parties, including customers, to execute
`confidential non-disclosure agreements. Plaintiffs implemented such policies
`and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information. These
`policies remain in place today.
`19.
`In 2013, Apple contacted Masimo and asked to meet regarding a
`potential collaboration. Apple told Masimo that Apple would like to understand
`more about Masimo’s technology to potentially integrate that technology into
`Apple’s products. Apple and Masimo later entered into a confidentiality
`agreement, and Masimo’s management met with Apple. The meetings included
`confidential discussions of Masimo’s technology. After what seemed to
`Masimo to have been productive meetings, Apple quickly began trying to hire
`Masimo employees, including engineers and key management.
`-5-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 7 of 182 Page ID
` #:5956
`
`
`20. Masimo employed Michael O’Reilly as its Chief Medical Officer
`and Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs beginning in January 2008.
`As part of the Masimo executive team, O’Reilly was privy to extremely
`sensitive information, including information about mobile medical products and
`applications, wellness applications, clinical data gathering and analytics, and
`other technology of Masimo. Upon information and belief, Apple employed
`O’Reilly in July 2013, shortly after the meetings with Masimo, to assist in
`wellness and mobile applications that include non-invasive measurement of
`physiological parameters. Not long after, by December of 2013, O’Reilly was
`already meeting with the FDA on behalf of Apple to discuss medical
`applications and discuss medical products that non-invasively measures blood
`constituents.
`21. Apple systematically recruited other key Masimo personnel, such
`as Marcelo Lamego, who was the former Chief Technical Officer of Cercacor
`and a former Research Scientist at Masimo. Lamego was a Masimo employee
`during 2000-2001 and 2003-2006, and the Cercacor Chief Technical Officer
`during 2006-2014.
`22. Lamego had unfettered access to Plaintiffs’ highly confidential
`technical information. He was trained and mentored at Masimo by the most
`skilled engineers and scientists, and was taught about the keys to effective non-
`invasive monitoring, something he was not involved in prior to Masimo.
`Masimo engineers and scientists taught Lamego about non-invasive monitoring,
`including, among others, Ammar Al-Ali, Mohamed Diab, and Walter Weber.
`The Masimo engineers, including Al-Ali, Diab, and Weber, were Masimo
`employees at all relevant times. Lamego also had access to and learned
`guarded secrets regarding Plaintiffs’ mobile medical products, including key
`technology and advance plans for future products.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-6-
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 8 of 182 Page ID
` #:5957
`
`
`23. When Lamego left Cercacor, he assured Plaintiffs that he would
`not violate his agreements with Plaintiffs and volunteered that he would not
`work on technology similar to Plaintiffs’ technology. On January 24, 2014,
`Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant explaining that Lamego possessed Plaintiffs’
`confidential proprietary information and warning Apple to respect Plaintiffs’
`rights in such information. The letter stated “we trust that Apple will employ
`Mr. Lamego in an area that does not involve healthcare technology, including
`mobile health applications and the measurement of physiological information.”
`The letter also asked that “Apple refrain from inducing Mr. Lamego to take
`actions that would violate the Agreement while he performs services for Apple”
`and asked Apple to “direct Mr. Lamego to honor his obligations to all of his
`prior employers.” Based on Plaintiffs’ conversations with Lamego, Plaintiffs’
`letter to Apple, and Plaintiffs’ confidentiality agreement with Apple, Plaintiffs
`reasonably believed that Lamego would not use or disclose Plaintiffs’
`confidential information and that Defendant would not induce Lamego to do so
`or itself use Plaintiffs’ confidential information.
`24. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, it now appears that, shortly
`after joining Apple in January 2014, Lamego began pursuing on behalf of Apple
`numerous patent applications directed toward technologies he worked on at
`Plaintiffs, and with which he had no prior experience or knowledge.
`25. Upon information and belief, Apple announced the first version of
`its watch in September 2014, and began shipping its watch in April 2015. The
`Apple Watch Series 3 was released on September 22, 2017, and upon
`information and belief had significant performance issues with the non-invasive
`physiological measurements. Apple announced the Apple Watch Series 4 on
`September 12, 2018, and upon information and belief, that watch includes
`technology that tracks Plaintiffs’ technologies to solve some of the performance
`issues. The Apple Watch Series 5 was announced on September 10, 2019 and
`-7-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 9 of 182 Page ID
` #:5958
`
`
`released on September 20, 2019. Upon information and belief, the Apple Watch
`Series 5 also includes Plaintiffs’ technologies to solve some of the prior
`performance issues, including technology as to which Lamego was an inventor
`while at Plaintiffs.
`26. As set forth in detail below, and on information and belief, each
`portion of evidence cited by Plaintiffs, such as the selected portions of Apple
`patent applications and Apple websites, accurately portrays, in relevant part, the
`structure, design, function and/or operation of the Apple Watch devices.
`V. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`27. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,258,265
`entitled “Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of
`blood constituents” (“the ’265 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on April 16, 2019.
`28. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,292,628
`entitled “Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of
`blood constituents” (“the ’628 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on May 21, 2019.
`29. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,553
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’553 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on March 17, 2020.
`30. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,588,554
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’554 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on March 17, 2020.
`31. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,624,564
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-8-
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 10 of 182 Page ID
` #:5959
`
`
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’564 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on April 21, 2020.
`32. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,765
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’765 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on April 28, 2020.
`33. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,194
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’194 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on July 7, 2020.
`34. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,702,195
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’195 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on July 7, 2020.
`35. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,366
`entitled “Multi-Stream Data Collection System For Noninvasive Measurement
`of Blood Constituents” (“the ’366 patent”), which the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on July 14, 2020.
`36. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,994
`entitled “Pulse oximeter probe-off detection system” (“the ’994 patent”), which
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on
`August 3, 2004.
`37. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703
`entitled “Low power pulse oximeter” (“the ’703 patent”), which the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on June 4, 2013.
`38. Masimo is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776
`entitled “Low power pulse oximeter” (“the ’776 patent”), which the United
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-9-
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 11 of 182 Page ID
` #:5960
`
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office lawfully and duly issued on October 8,
`2019.
`
`VI. PLAINTIFFS’ TRADE SECRETS
`39. Plaintiffs own trade secrets that include, but are not limited to,
`Plaintiffs’ technical information, sales and marketing information, and other
`business information relating to non-invasive monitoring of physiological
`parameters and products to perform such monitoring. Plaintiffs’ technical
`information includes product plans, engineering plans, product briefs, technical
`drawings, technical specifications, technical data, product designs, system designs,
`design captures, assembly design requirements, risk analysis, test procedures and
`results, test data, design review documents, software requirement specifications,
`technical know-how, manufacturing techniques and procedures, installation
`techniques and procedures, and invention disclosures. Plaintiffs’ sales and
`marketing
`information
`includes product plans, business plans, customer
`information, sales pipelines, proposal and quote generation tools, pricing models,
`pricing schedules, sales training materials, product training materials, marketing
`and launch plans, marketing analysis, and competitive analysis. Plaintiffs’ other
`business information includes information for successfully operating a non-
`invasive patient monitoring company, including personnel information, supplier
`information, and other business spreadsheets and analysis. Plaintiffs’ trade secrets
`also include combinations and selections of the above information, and knowledge
`of the varying importance of the information. Plaintiffs’ trade secrets also include
`knowledge for selecting which information and technology are important for
`improving reliability, improving measurements, and how to successfully combine
`and implement them to achieve the desired functionality. Plaintiffs’ trade secrets
`also include negative information, what works well under certain conditions, and
`trade-offs of selecting certain techniques.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-10-
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 12 of 182 Page ID
` #:5961
`
`
`40. The full extent of Apple’s misappropriation will be revealed
`through discovery. However, based on the information currently available to
`Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs allege Apple misappropriated at least the following specific
`trade secrets discussed in Paragraphs 41-50 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 13 of 182 Page ID
` #:5962
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 14 of 182 Page ID
` #:5963
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 15 of 182 Page ID
` #:5964
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 16 of 182 Page ID
` #:5965
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 17 of 182 Page ID
` #:5966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51. The aforementioned information is referred to herein as Plaintiffs’
`“Confidential Information.”
`VII. THE DISPUTED LAMEGO PATENTS
`52. Lamego is named as an inventor on U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 62/043,294, filed Aug. 28, 2014 and titled “Reflective Surface
`Treatments for Optical Sensors.” Related applications that also name Lamego
`as an inventor include U.S Patent Application Nos. 14/740,196 and 16/114,003,
`which issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,078,052 and 10,247,670.
`53. Lamego is also named as an inventor on U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 62/047,818, filed Sep. 9, 2014, entitled “Modulation and
`Demodulation Techniques for a Health Monitoring System.” A related
`application that names Lamego as the sole inventor includes U.S Patent
`Application No. 14/621,268, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,219,754.
`-16-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 18 of 182 Page ID
` #:5967
`
`
`54. Lamego is also named as an inventor on U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 62/056,299, filed on Sep. 26, 2014, and entitled “Electronic
`Device that Computes Health Data.” Related applications that also name
`Lamego as the sole inventor include U.S Patent Application Nos. 14/617,422,
`15/667,832, and 16/700,710. The ’422 Application issued as U.S. Patent No.
`9,723,997 and the ’832 Application issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,524,671.
`55. Lamego is also named as an inventor on U.S. Provisional Patent
`Application No. 62/057,089, filed on Sep. 29, 2014, and entitled “Methods and
`Systems for Modulation and Demodulation of Optical Signals.” Related
`applications that also name Lamego as an inventor include U.S Patent
`Application Nos. 14/618,664 and 15/960,507. The ’664 Application issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 9,952,095.
`VIII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,258,265)
`56. Plaintiff Masimo hereby realleges and incorporates by reference
`the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55.
`57. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s products, including at
`least the Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices, infringe at least Claims 1-3, 6-
`11, 13, 16-25 of the ’265 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c).
`58. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed one
`or more claims of the ’265 patent through manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale,
`and/or importation into the United States of physiological monitors, including
`the Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices.
`59. For example, upon information and belief, in operation, the Apple
`Watch Series 4 and later devices include all of the limitations of Claim 1 of the
`’265 patent as set forth herein and further illustrated in the claim chart shown in
`Exhibit 1. The Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices are adapted to be worn
`by a wearer and provide an indication of a physiological parameter (for
`-17-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 19 of 182 Page ID
` #:5968
`
`
`example, heart rate) of the wearer as shown in the image below found on the
`Apple website at https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/:
`
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, relevant technology in the Apple Watch Series 4
`and later devices is described in International Application Publication
`WO 2018/226305 (the ’305 publication). For example, the Apple Watch Series
`4 and later devices provide an indication of a physiological parameter of the
`wearer as described in the ’305 publication at paragraphs [0055]-[0061].
`60. The Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices include a plurality of
`emitters of different wavelengths (for example, green and infrared LEDs) and at
`least four detectors (for example, photodiode sensors) spaced apart from each
`other as shown in the image below found on the Apple website at
`https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-18-
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 20 of 182 Page ID
` #:5969
`
`
`
`
`
`
`61. The detectors output signals responsive to light from the light
`emitters attenuated by body tissue. Upon information and belief, the signals are
`indicative of a physiological parameter (for example, heart rate) of the wearer.
`62. Upon information and belief, relevant technology in the Apple
`Watch Series 4 and later devices is described in the below citation to U.S. Patent
`Application Publication 2019/0072912 (the ’912 publication). The Apple
`Watch Series 4 and later devices include a housing having a surface and a
`circular wall protruding from the surface, and a light permeable cover arranged
`above a portion of the housing and covering the detectors. Fig. 4C and the
`corresponding text of the ’912 publication show, for example, such housing:
`
`-19-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 21 of 182 Page ID
` #:5970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`63. Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of
`Masimo’s patents, including the ’265 patent, at least based on O’Reilly and
`Lamego’s former positions with Plaintiffs. Masimo filed provisional patent
`applications that led to the ’265 patent in August 2008, while O’Reilly and
`Lamego were with Masimo and/or Cercacor. Lamego is a named inventor of
`the ’265 patent. Defendant had knowledge of the ’265 patent no later than the
`filing of the original Complaint.
`64. Upon information and belief, Defendant has actively induced
`others to infringe the ’265 patent by marketing and selling the above Apple
`Watch Series 4 and later devices, knowing and intending that such systems
`would be used by customers and end users in a manner that infringes the
`’265 patent. To that end, Defendant provides instructions and teachings to its
`customers and end users that such Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices be
`
`-20-
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE Document 88-2 Filed 07/24/20 Page 22 of 182 Page ID
` #:5971
`
`
`used to infringe the ’265 patent. Defendant’s acts constitute infringement of the
`’265 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`65. Upon information and belief, Defendant actively induces users to
`directly infringe the asserted claims of the ’265 patent. By way of example
`only, upon
`information and belief, Defendant actively
`induces direct
`infringement of the ’265 patent by providing directions, demonstrations, guides,
`manuals, training for use, and/or other materials necessary for the use of the
`Apple Watch Series 4 and later devices, including use with Apple iPhones.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant knew or should have known that these
`activities would cause direct infringement.
`66. Upon
`information and belief, Defendant’s acts constitute
`contributory infringement of the ’265 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`Upon information and belief, Defendant contributorily infringes because, among
`other things, Defendant offers to sell and/or sells within the United States,
`and/or imports into the United States, components of the Apple Watch Series 4
`and later devices and Apple iPhones that constitute material parts of the
`invention of the asserted claims of the ’265 patent, are not staple articles or
`commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use and are
`known by Defendant to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`infringement of the ’265 patent.
`67. Defendan