Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

US Apple Watch import ban is on hold, for now

Apple Watch Series 9 (left) and Apple Watch Ultra (right)

Last updated

Apple has won a temporary stay blocking the ITC sales and import ban on the Apple Watch in the United States, two days after the ban was implemented.

On December 25, an ITC order banned the import and sale of Apple Watch models that infringed on patents owned by Masimo, preventing their sale in the United States. On Wednesday, Apple managed to secure a reprieve.

In an appeals court win on December 27, Apple managed to convince the court to delay the import ban, effectively allowing the sale of the wearable devices in the United States once again.

The filing explains that Apple submitted a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stay the International Trade Commission's limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders, as well as an interim stay for the orders pending a ruling on the motion to stay the orders.

Apple filed the motion on December 26, citing the potential "irreparable harm" to its business. December 26 was the earliest opportunity for Apple, as it had to wait until after the 60-day White House review window elapsed on December 25.

In response, the ITC opposed and "respectfully requests a five-day extension" from January 5, 2024 to January 10, 2024 so it can "file its response" to the motion for a stay pending appeal.

In its own filing, the Appeals Court orders that the interim stay motion is granted, stopping the enforcement of the import and sales ban until the court considers the motion for a stay pending appeal. While the interim stay is in effect, Apple still must comply with existing bond requirements from the ITC's orders.

The ITC, meanwhile, has been granted its five-day extension, and opposition to the motion to stay pending appeal is due by January 10. Replies in support are due by January 15.

In short, this means Apple has secured a temporary halt on the import and sales ban, and it will be in place until the Appeals Courts make a full ruling on the infringement case. As such a ruling could take weeks or months to be determined, this does buy Apple time to make more holiday season sales.

While the win is positive to Apple, it won't be an immediate change. U.S. Customs will have to process the court's order and re-allow imports into the country.

Despite a reprieve, there's no guarantee that Apple will restart direct Apple Watch sales straight away. It will have to quickly import a lot of stock from elsewhere, or sell direct from the supply chain in China, to make restarting worthwhile during the highly lucrative holiday sales period.

Third-party retailers who sell the Apple Watch remain unaffected, though they will have to depend on existing stock on hand for the moment.

Apple Watch Import Ban Temporary Stay by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd



12 Comments

tht 23 Years · 5654 comments

Hehe, there is definitely something structurally wrong with the ITC and how they execute their responsibilities. First time I read about an ITC case was the Broadcom vs Qualcomm case in 2007, where it issued an absolutely nutso set of decisions. It was in their power to ban basically all cellular and wireless communications devices (cell phones, pagers, routers, whathaveyou) as Broadcom and Qualcomm IP is in every single device with wireless networking in existence. They definitely are confusing their job of protecting US consumers versus protecting companies, and they definitely have favorites.

In the AliveCor vs Apple patent case, the patent appeal board invalidated the patents that was asserted in the AliveCor vs Apple ITC case. About 2 weeks later, rather than just dismiss the case or put the case on pause, the ITC issued a decision that Apple violated AliveCor's invalidated patents, Apple Watches with the EKG features are banned from being imported, but that import action is stayed pending AliveCor's appeal of the invalidation of their patents. Absolutely nutty.

eightzero 14 Years · 3148 comments

Well...that escalated quickly. 

Note the continuing bond requirement. 

MplsP 8 Years · 4047 comments

I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 

tht 23 Years · 5654 comments

MplsP said:
I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 

It's lawyer-speak and irreparable harm means something different in court than it does to laypersons.

I guess fundamentally, you can interpret it to mean that Apple is losing sales, revenue and income as they can't sell any Watch Series 9 and Ultras during the holiday shopping season. That's tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that can't be recovered because Apple can't go back in time to get those sales back. The gov't doesn't have to make an import ban decision now and can wait until decisions are final.

MplsP 8 Years · 4047 comments

tht said:
MplsP said:
I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology. 
It's lawyer-speak and irreparable harm means something different in court than it does to laypersons.

I guess fundamentally, you can interpret it to mean that Apple is losing sales, revenue and income as they can't sell any Watch Series 9 and Ultras during the holiday shopping season. That's tens to hundreds of millions of dollars that can't be recovered because Apple can't go back in time to get those sales back. The gov't doesn't have to make an import ban decision now and can wait until decisions are final.

The same argument could be made for any patent enforcement, though so if ‘lost sales’ is the argument it essentially becomes meaningless.