“Whether the Commission erred in determining that Apple did not violate Section 337 on the basis that claims 16 and 17 of the ’499 patent are invalid for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“Whether the Commission erred in determining that Apple did not violate Section 337 on the basis that AliveCor failed to prove that Apple’s products infringe claims 16 or 17 of the ’499 patent.”
Cross-Appeal:
“Whether the Commission erred in finding an existing domestic industry in AliveCor’s long-discontinued KardiaBand product based on a modest amount of research and development spending that no witness attempted to link to the asserted patents and which mostly related to products that the Commission found were not part of the domestic industry.”
“Whether the Commission erred in concluding that the accused Apple Watches infringe patent claims requiring a smartwatch processor that uses ECG data to ‘confirm . . . the arrhythmia’ first detected by PPG data, despite the undisputed fact that Apple Watch’s ECG and PPG-based features are wholly separate and do not interact, as required by Apple’s FDA clearances.”
“Whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that Apple Watch does not infringe patent claims requiring the device to ‘alert [the] user to record an electrocardiogram,’ when Apple Watch instead alerts users to ‘talk to [their] doctor.’”
“Whether the Commission erred in upholding certain dependent patent claims by ignoring record evidence, and whether the Commission erred in concluding that admittedly weak evidence of secondary considerations outweighed Apple’s strong showing of prima facie obviousness.”
“Whether the Commission properly held claims patent-ineligible when they were directed to a known diagnostic process, implemented on generic technology.”
“Whether the Commission properly issued sweeping remedial orders directed at a U.S. company’s innovative product that can improve health and save lives, particularly when the complainant offers no competing product.”
