Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech

Apple this week secured another victory in its ongoing legal dispute with heart monitoring company AliveCor, after a federal appeals court upheld a 2024 ruling that found Apple's changes to the Apple Watch were lawful product improvements rather than anticompetitive behavior.

Kardia Band apple watch
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that rejected AliveCor's antitrust claims. AliveCor had argued that Apple illegally monopolized the market for heart rate analysis apps on watchOS when it replaced its Heart Rate during Physical Observation (HRPO) algorithm with its heart rate neural network (HRNN) algorithm in watchOS 5.

AliveCor claimed that Apple changed the algorithm so that its ECG KardiaBand could no longer identify irregular heart rhythms – as part of an alleged effort to "eliminate opposition" in the heart rate analysis space – and requested that it reinstate the old algorithm.

Apple argued that AliveCor did not have the right to dictate Apple's design decisions, and that the request to support the older heart rate technology would require the court to be a day-to-day enforcer of how Apple engineers its products. The court ultimately agreed with Apple.

The Ninth Circuit has now affirmed Apple's victory. "The undisputed evidence shows as a matter of law that Apple's refusal to share HRPO data was not anticompetitive," the court wrote. It added that even if some form of heart rate data access were essential for competing in the market, AliveCor's claim would still fail because Apple provides app developers with access to the same Tachogram API data that Apple's Irregular Rhythm Notification feature uses.

The appeals court also rejected AliveCor's argument that Apple had a duty to share its proprietary data with competitors. The ruling said that antitrust laws generally impose no obligation for companies to deal with their rivals. It also noted that such a requirement "would implicate the same concerns regarding incentives to innovate and judicial competency that the Supreme Court has articulated."

The decision is Apple's second major win against AliveCor within the last year. In March, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidation of three AliveCor patents related to heart rate monitoring, vacating an International Trade Commission ruling that could have led to an Apple Watch import ban.

AliveCor said at the time of the court's original ruling that it was "deeply disappointed" by the decision and would continue to explore all available legal options, including potential appeals.

Popular Stories

iphone 17 pro dark blue 1

Apple Preparing 'Most Significant Overhaul in the iPhone's History'

Sunday March 29, 2026 8:18 am PDT by
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has high expectations for Apple's first foldable iPhone. In his Power On newsletter today, he said the foldable iPhone will be "the most significant overhaul in the iPhone's history." "iPhone 4, iPhone 6 and iPhone X were clearly a big deal, but this is a whole new design," he said. Like Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold 7, the foldable iPhone will reportedly open up like ...
Apple Event Logo

Apple to Launch These 15+ New Products Later This Year

Friday March 27, 2026 2:03 pm PDT by
March has been an incredibly busy month for Apple, with the company unveiling more than 10 new products and accessories. We said hello to the MacBook Neo at the start of the month, and we bid farewell to the Mac Pro at the end of it. Nevertheless, there is still a lot more to come this year. Beyond the usual annual updates to iPhones and Apple Watches, Apple's all-new smart home hub is...
Apple Apps Grid

Apple Releasing Two New iPhone Apps This Year

Saturday March 28, 2026 8:00 am PDT by
Apple is expected to release two new iPhone apps this year, including an Apple Business app and a Siri app with chatbot-like functionality. With the Apple Business app, employees at businesses using the new Apple Business platform will be able to install apps for work, view contact information for colleagues, and request support. Apple Business is launching on April 14, and it replaces Apple ...

Top Rated Comments

11 weeks ago
You know, Apple has brought significant consumer value to the Apple Watch, both with Blood Oxygen and ECG. These provide valuable medical information to the users, at a low cost, because it's bundled in with a device they already have. The key value is that people don't need to pay extra / get an add-on, and because of that, the technology gets to a lot more people. After all, you don't buy an ECG / heart rate monitoring device specifically unless you know you have/had an irregular heartbeat.

But by adding it to a watch you're buying anyway, now there's an opportunity for people to catch these arrhythmias early, when they first happen, and do something about it.

AliveCor makes the Kardia device. I've owned two of them, and currently pay a subscription fee to them. Why? I had problems in the past, and the fact that they have a device that can do a 6-lead ECG is worth it.

Companies like AliveCor and Masimo should focus on their value-add, and build on what Apple's brought to the everyday consumer, who would never be their customer anyway.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
vegetassj4 Avatar
11 weeks ago
Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?



Attachment Image
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 weeks ago
AliveCor expecting Apple to reengineer its mass-market products to accommodate its extremely niche accessory is peak clown behavior.
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 weeks ago

Could our elected officials focus on addressing patent trolls among other things and not on TDS?
You don't know what a patent troll is.

AliveCor is a legit company with legit products. And they even came first. But somehow Apple got away with all this.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 weeks ago

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?


They can’t monopolize any market that doesn’t include one of their trademarks in the market definition. They’re just not that well used worldwide. Can they monopolize, say, Apple Keynote? Well, sure, because it’s Apple’s Keynote. They can’t monopolize “presentation software”, though, and I don’t think anyone would seriously expect that they could. :)

But, most wouldn’t call something like that a monopoly, anyway. It’d be more accurate to describe it as a “product or service they sell,” which is the same for any product or service they have registered a trademark for.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
HouseLannister Avatar
11 weeks ago
Oh good, I was worried the lawyers' children were going to go hungry this winter!
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)