Cardiologist Inventor Urges ITC to Ban Apple Watch Imports
Apple is “one of the world’s richest companies and one with a proud tradition of innovation,” but neither of those attributes “should make Apple above the law,” commented Charles Swerdlow, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Beverly Hills,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
in docket 337-TA-1266 at the International Trade Commission. If the Apple Watch infringed AliveCor’s patented electrocardiogram technology, as an ITC administrative law judge ruled in an initial determination June 27 that it did, “then failing to punish Apple will only encourage it and other large corporations to copy future innovations developed by other small companies,” said Swerdlow Wednesday. He differed from other cardiologists who urged the ITC not to ban Apple Watch imports for Tariff Act Section 337 violations because the product’s ECG functions have helped atrial fibrillation patients seek treatment earlier than they would have otherwise (see 2207270036). Swerdlow described himself as a named inventor on 35 U.S. patents related to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, “and I have commercialized several of these patents.” Wearing his inventor’s hat, he said, “I have had a few difficult experiences in which large companies were able to effectively copy my inventions without consequences because I lacked the financial resources to pursue an infringement suit.” Sparing the Apple Watch from the import ban that the ALJ recommended may be “good for Apple and -- in the short term – good for some of its customers,” said Swerdlow. “But it will do a deep disservice to the nation’s inventors, undercut innovation in our society, and encourage public distrust that the largest companies are above the law.” Swerdlow thinks a “sufficiently severe penalty” like an import ban could protect companies like AliveCor and “deter Apple and other large corporations from future actions that unlawfully copy inventions patented by smaller companies and individual inventors,” he said. Apple didn’t comment Thursday. It filed public interest comments in the docket Wednesday that were marked confidential.