Federal Jury Decides $250 Million in Patent Dispute Over Smartwatch Designs
Reuters reports that Apple recently won a federal jury verdict in Delaware, where it was awarded $250 million after a jury determined that Masimo's W1 and Freedom watches, along with their chargers, infringed on two of Apple’s design patents.
Apple’s legal team stated that the main goal of this lawsuit was to secure an injunction against Masimo's smartwatch sales following the infringement ruling. The jury also ruled in favor of Masimo on other counts, concluding that Masimo’s watches did not violate Apple’s patents related to smartwatch technology, which Apple had claimed were copied.
In response, Masimo expressed appreciation for the jury’s decision, highlighting that the ruling was in its favor on most issues, particularly regarding its current products. This decision comes amid an ongoing legal battle between the two companies, as Masimo previously succeeded in blocking Apple’s imports of specific Apple Watch models after alleging patent infringement on Masimo’s oxygen-level-monitoring technology. Apple appealed this ruling and countersued Masimo in 2022, accusing Masimo of copying Apple Watch features. Both companies have continued to litigate their disputes through various channels, with Masimo labeling Apple's actions as retaliatory.
New Jersey Legislature Moves to Exempt Nursing Mothers from Jury Duty
WHYY and NPRreport that the New Jersey legislature is close to finalizing Bill A-1992, that would excuse nursing mothers with children under one year old from jury duty. In the NPR report, the bill’s sponsor Assemblyman Reginald Atkins emphasized the importance of recognizing the needs of mothers and their children. The state senate has already approved the measure, aiming to create a more supportive environment for breastfeeding mothers. The bill responds to challenges faced by nursing mothers during jury duty, such as discomfort and difficulty in maintaining feeding schedules, which can cause health issues if interrupted.
Supporters, like Sandy Doyle of the La Leche League, highlight that jury duty can disrupt a baby's feeding patterns, making it impractical for nursing mothers to participate. Similar exemptions exist in states like California, Kansas, and Virginia, allowing postponements or exemptions for breastfeeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics supports exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, stressing the health benefits for both mothers and babies.
The New Jersey Department of Health would develop a system to verify claims of nursing status under this new legislation.
Debating the Constitutional Role of Peremptory Challenges in Jury Trials
In an article from the Vanderbilt Law Review, law professor and author Richard Lorren Jolly addresses the historical and constitutional dimensions of peremptory challenges in jury selection, arguing that their abolition is unconstitutional. Peremptory challenges, which allow parties to dismiss potential jurors without providing a reason, are among the oldest practices in U.S. jury selection, originating in English common law and considered foundational to the judicial process at the time of the U.S. founding. While peremptory challenges have historically allowed parties to shape juries to their advantage, they are controversial due to their use in advancing biases, particularly against race and gender, leading to calls for their abolition. Arizona recently became the first state to eliminate peremptory challenges entirely, reigniting the debate over their role in the judicial process.
Author Richard Lorren Jolly argues that despite criticisms, the Sixth Amendment secures the right of criminal defendants to participate in jury selection through peremptory challenges, especially in capital cases, with historical precedent suggesting this practice is deeply rooted in constitutional tradition. The article explores how peremptory challenges can foster perceptions of impartiality, balancing defendants’ rights to a fair trial with the judicial system’s goal of maintaining representative juries. While it acknowledges the systemic biases introduced by peremptories, Jolly contends that their complete abolition is unconstitutional, recommending instead that regulated, limited use of peremptories may better balance fairness and representativeness in jury selection.