Apple Wins in AliveCor's antitrust action against Apple Watch!

 In the continuing legal dispute with AliveCor about the cardiac tracking technology of the Apple Watch, Apple has been declared the winner.

AliveCor had claimed that Apple had limited access to specific heart rate data from the Apple Watch for third parties, which it considered to be anti-competitive. However, a US District Court judge has decided fully in favor of Apple, stating that the business will not need to go through a trial over the issue.

An official from Apple told 9to5Mac in a statement:

“At Apple, our teams are constantly innovating to create products and services that empower users with health, wellness, and life-saving features. AliveCor’s lawsuit challenged Apple’s ability to improve important capabilities of the Apple Watch that consumers and developers rely on, and today’s outcome confirms that is not anti-competitive. We thank the Court for its careful consideration of this case, and will continue to protect the innovations we advance on behalf of our customers against meritless claims.”

The Apple Watch heart rate algorithm was upgraded in 2018 as part of watchOS 5, moving from the "Heart Rate Path Optimizer" algorithm (HRPO) to the "Heart Rate Neural Network" algorithm (HRNN). This was the main focus of the case. AliveCor said that the SmartRhythm feature, which is accessible through its own watchOS app, is negatively impacted by these modifications.

Then, in May 2021, AliveCor filed an antitrust complaint, claiming that Apple ought to have kept providing Apple Watch heart rate data derived from the pre-watchOS 5 algorithms as well. However, Apple decided against doing this since it believed the HRNN to be more accurate.

Additionally, Apple stated that it has always provided developers with access to Apple Watch heart rate data, including through the Workout Session API in watchOS 5. Furthermore, it contended that Apple Watch's heart rate algorithm modifications in watchOS 5 were legitimate product enhancements and that outside businesses had no jurisdiction to influence Apple's commercial choices or design.

US District Judge Jeffrey White gave Apple the benefit of the doubt in this lawsuit through a summary judgment. Apple said a public version of the decision will be published in a few weeks, but the specifics are not available due to confidentiality concerns.

The judge determined that there was no anticompetitive nature to Apple's watchOS modifications and that a jury trial was not necessary in this case.

Furthermore, there is still a separate patent issue between Apple and AliveCor about the ECG functionality of the Apple Watch. The ruling made today is unrelated to that patent battle.

Apple also draws attention to the parallels between the resolution of the AliveCor antitrust case and its legal dispute with Epic Games, but it highlights one significant distinction.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers found that Apple had broken California's Unfair Competition Law in the Epic Games case, requiring the company to amend its anti-steering App Store policies.

Nonetheless, AliveCor's argument that Apple had broken California's Unfair Competition Law was dismissed by the court this time. If this hadn't happened, Apple could have had to keep providing the Apple Watch with its outdated heart rate tracking algorithm.

Despite what AliveCor tried and failed to prove, the court's ruling upholds Apple's innovation on the Apple Watch, including the more sophisticated HRNN algorithm, as being procompetitive and pro-consumer. This verdict has a resemblance to the Epic Games ruling, wherein Judge Rogers highlighted the competitive advantages of Apple's app approval process and the App Store.