Alivecor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALIVECOR, INC.,
Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
APPLE INC.,
Intervenor
-------------------------------------------------
APPLE INC.,
Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
ALIVECOR, INC.,
Intervenor
______________________
2023-1509, 2023-1553
______________________
Appeals from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1266.
Case: 23-1509 Document: 130 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ALIVECOR, INC. v. ITC 2
______________________
Decided: March 7, 2025
______________________
SEAN S. PAK, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
sented by WILLIAM A DAMS, New York, NY.
MELANIE L. B OSTWICK, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also
represented by A BIGAIL COLELLA , Z ACHARY HENNESSEE ;
E LIZABETH MOULTON, San Francisco, CA; E. JOSHUA
R OSENKRANZ , New York, NY; MICHAEL ARI AMON, Fish &
Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA; RUFFIN B. C ORDELL,
Washington, DC; B ENJAMIN E LACQUA , Houston, TX; MARK
S. DAVIES, White & Case LLP, Washington, DC.
PANYIN HUGHES, Office of the General Counsel, United
States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC,
argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC L.
B IANCHI , CATHY CHEN, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, SIDNEY A.
R OSENZWEIG.
______________________
Before HUGHES, L INN , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM .
AliveCor, Inc. (“AliveCor”) owns U.S. Patent Nos.
9,572,499 (the “’499 patent”), 10,595,731 (the “’731 pa-
tent”), and 10,638,941 (the “’941 patent”) (collectively, the
“Asserted Patents”), which each relate to systems and
methods for measuring and analyzing physiological data to
detect cardiac arrhythmias. On May 26, 2021, the Inter-
national Trade Commission (“Commission”) instituted an
investigation in response to AliveCor’s allegations that Ap-
ple Inc. (“Apple”) violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing or
selling Apple Watch products incorporating features that
Case: 23-1509 Document: 130 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ALIVECOR, INC. v. ITC 3
infringe the Asserted Patents. An administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination finding that
Apple had violated Section 377 by infringing the ’941 and
’731 patents, but finding no violation as to the ’499 patent.
The Commission, reviewing the ALJ’s decision, reached the
same conclusion and issued a limited exclusion order re-
stricting importation of Apple’s watch products. AliveCor
appealed the Commission’s final decision, and Apple cross-
appealed.
The validity of the Asserted Patents was also chal-
lenged in parallel inter partes review proceedings before
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board
found all claims of each Asserted Patent invalid, and we
have now affirmed those decisions. See AliveCor, Inc.
v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2023-1512, 2023-1513, 2023-1514 (Fed.
Cir. March 7, 2025).
Now that we have affirmed the Board’s finding of un-
patentability for each Asserted Patent, the Commission’s
investigation is moot. See XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding our affir-
mance of Board’s invalidity determination “has an imme-
diate issue-preclusive effect on any pending or co-pending
actions involving the patent”).
Accordingly, we vacate the Commission’s decision and
remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1509 Document: 130 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 3 of 3 --