1. ”Whether the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, including by:” a. “holding Masimo satisfied the technical prong, even though the item identified in the complaint as the purported ‘article’ admittedly never existed and the Commission’s decision relied on cobbled together circumstantial evidence to find that Masimo somehow possessed a patent-practicing ‘article,’ and” b. “holding Masimo satisfied the economic prong, even though Masimo concededly relied on investments made in several items that admittedly do not practice the patents at issue—and even as to the items relied upon, offered only rank speculation and made-for-litigation spreadsheets.” 2. “Whether the Commission erred in concluding the five remaining patent claims (out of 103 originally-asserted) were not invalid, including by” a. “with regards to obviousness, requiring Apple to show that the relevant prior art disclosed/enabled more than the patents themselves, and disregarding KSR’s ordinary creativity standard, and” b. “with regard to written description, endorsing precisely the kind of post-hoc mixing-and-matching of unrelated elements that this Court has rejected.” 3. “Whether the Commission erred in concluding the accused products infringed the five remaining claims, where the Commission’s ruling rested on clam constructions of terms like ‘over,’ ‘above,’ and ‘through’ that flout their plain meanings.” 4. “Whether the Commission erred in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense, where Masimo strategically waited over a decade to submit its continuation applications and only did so after Apple invested immense resources to develop the accused products.”
1. “[W]e affirm the Commission’s finding that Masimo met its obligation to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.”
a. “[T]he Commission did not rely on a ‘hypothetical’ article as Apple wrongly asserts; instead the Commission identified as the pertinent patent-practicing article the Masimo Watch, as representatively described in Masimo’s complaint, and supported by the prototypes Masimo produced in discovery, and as further proven by the testimony of multiple witnesses, product testing data, and other circumstantial evidence the ALJ credited.”
b. “[T]he Commission committed no error in crediting Masimo’s evidence of its investments.”
2. “Apple has similarly failed to persuade us that the Commission erred in determining that the infringed claims were not proven invalid. We agree with the Commission and reject Apple’s claims that the Poeze Patents lack adequate written description or would have been obvious.”
a. “[W]e affirm the Commission’s conclusion that Apple failed to prove the asserted claims are invalid due to obviousness.”
b. “[W]e affirm the Commission’s finding that the asserted claims are not invalid for lack of adequate written description.”
3. “[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘over’ and ‘above,’ as used in the field of wearable medical equipment, relates to positions of the equipment’s components relative to other components, without any further restriction on the orientation of the device. Generally, a construction that would exclude a disclosed embodiment, as Apple’s construction would . . . is not preferred.” “We therefore agree with the ALJ’s construction.”
4. “[W]e affirm the Commission’s finding that prosecution laches does not bar Masimo from enforcing its asserted patents.”
