TL;DR
A federal appeals panel has affirmed summary judgment for Apple, rejecting AliveCor’s claim that changes to Apple Watch software and data access amounted to monopolization. The decision follows an earlier patent defeat for AliveCor that removed a threat of an Apple Watch import ban.
What happened
On January 8, 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Apple, rebuffing AliveCor’s antitrust suit under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. AliveCor had alleged that Apple’s update to watchOS and its decision to stop providing an older heart-rate algorithm’s output to third-party apps undermined AliveCor’s SmartRhythm atrial fibrillation detection, while Apple rolled out its own Irregular Rhythm Notification. The appeals panel concluded Apple lawfully declined to continue sharing proprietary technology and found no applicable exception to create antitrust liability. Judges also determined the specific data AliveCor sought did not qualify as an essential facility, noting Apple’s own heart-rhythm feature depends on different data that remains accessible to developers via existing APIs. The ruling arrives after a separate March 2025 dispute in which AliveCor’s patents were invalidated, ending its patent-based challenge in the International Trade Commission.
Why it matters
- Sets a legal precedent that altering proprietary algorithms and data-sharing practices can be a lawful refusal to deal rather than anticompetitive conduct.
- Reduces AliveCor’s legal avenues after the prior patent invalidation that removed the prospect of an Apple Watch import ban.
- Clarifies courts’ willingness to treat platform-controlled datasets as nonessential where alternate data is available to third-party developers.
- May influence how health and medical app makers design features that depend on platform-provided signals or algorithms.
Key facts
- Decision filed January 8, 2026 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- Court affirmed summary judgment for Apple, rejecting AliveCor’s monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
- AliveCor’s SmartRhythm relied on heart-rate data from an older Apple algorithm used while Apple Watch was in Workout Mode.
- Apple updated watchOS, switched to a different heart-rate algorithm, stopped sharing the old algorithm’s data, and introduced Irregular Rhythm Notification using a separate algorithm.
- The Ninth Circuit characterized Apple’s behavior as a lawful refusal to deal and found AliveCor did not meet recognized exceptions to that rule.
- Judges concluded the data AliveCor sought was not an essential facility; alternate data remains available to developers through existing APIs.
- In March 2025, AliveCor lost a separate ITC patent challenge after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated its heart-monitoring patents; that finding was sustained on appeal.
- The earlier patent outcome removed the risk of an Apple Watch import ban tied to AliveCor’s patent claims.
What to watch next
- Whether AliveCor will pursue further review (for example, a petition for rehearing or Supreme Court appeal) — not confirmed in the source.
- If Apple changes developer data access or documentation in response to litigation or policy pressure — not confirmed in the source.
Quick glossary
- Ninth Circuit: A federal appeals court that reviews decisions from district courts in nine western states and territories.
- Summary judgment: A court ruling that decides a case or specific claims without a full trial when there is no disputed material fact.
- Section 2 of the Sherman Act: U.S. antitrust law provision that prohibits monopolization, attempts to monopolize, and conspiracies to monopolize.
- API (Application Programming Interface): A set of tools and protocols that allows software components to communicate and enables developers to access platform data or features.
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB): A body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that reviews the validity of granted patents through specialized proceedings.
- International Trade Commission (ITC): A U.S. agency that can investigate unfair trade practices, including patent-based import exclusions.
Reader FAQ
Did the appeals court rule on AliveCor’s patent claims?
No. The Ninth Circuit decision addressed AliveCor’s antitrust claim; the related patent issues were resolved earlier in March 2025 when AliveCor’s patents were invalidated in an ITC-related process.
Did the court find Apple had illegally monopolized the market?
No. The court affirmed that Apple’s actions amounted to a lawful refusal to deal and rejected the monopolization claim.
Was an Apple Watch import ban imposed?
No. The source reports that the March 2025 patent ruling removed the risk of an Apple Watch import ban tied to AliveCor’s patent challenge.
Will AliveCor regain access to the old heart-rate data?
Not confirmed in the source.
Apple confirms Chase takeover for Apple Card and reveals new details Chance Miller Jan 7 2026 APPLE WATCH ANTITRUST ALIVECOR Apple shuts down AliveCor antitrust claims after earlier Apple Watch…
Sources
- Apple shuts down AliveCor antitrust claims after earlier Apple Watch patent win
- Apple defeats AliveCor bid to block US smartwatch imports …
- Ninth Circuit Denies Dimissal of Apple Inc Design Antitrust …
- Apple Heart Monitor Antitrust Case Faces Question of …
Related posts
- AirPods Pro 3 near holiday lows; 13-inch M5 iPad Pro $150 off today
- Leaked iPhone Fold mockups suggest unfolded device will resemble an iPad mini
- Apple TV Announces Season 2 Premiere for Critically Acclaimed Drops of God