AliveCor’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple: A Judicial Setback
In a notable legal development, AliveCor’s attempts to contest Apple in an antitrust lawsuit concerning the Apple Watch have been hindered by a recent verdict from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 8, 2026, the court upheld a summary judgment favoring Apple, marking another triumph for the tech titan in its persistent legal confrontations with the medical technology firm.
Background of the Case
AliveCor, recognized for its pioneering heart monitoring innovations, asserted that Apple had partaken in anti-competitive activities by dominating the market for heart rhythm analysis applications on the Apple Watch. The contention revolves around AliveCor’s SmartRhythm feature, which identifies instances of atrial fibrillation using heart rate metrics determined by an algorithm while the Apple Watch is set to “Workout Mode.” Following AliveCor’s launch of SmartRhythm, Apple revised its watchOS, introducing a new algorithm that not only computed heart rate data differently but also stopped sharing data from the older algorithm with third-party developers, including AliveCor.
In addition to the algorithm alteration, Apple unveiled its own feature named Irregular Rhythm Notification, which similarly detects irregular heart rhythms but depends on a distinct algorithm. This action, per AliveCor, significantly impaired the effectiveness of SmartRhythm, prompting accusations of unfair competition.
Court’s Ruling
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling dismissed AliveCor’s allegations, stating that Apple’s conduct represented a legitimate refusal to engage rather than an instance of anti-competitive actions. The court highlighted that companies are under no obligation by antitrust laws to persist in sharing proprietary technology with rivals. AliveCor failed to demonstrate any acknowledged exceptions to this overarching principle.
Moreover, the judges observed that the heart rate data AliveCor sought was not classified as an essential facility. They emphasized that Apple’s own heart rhythm feature utilized alternative data that remained accessible to third-party developers through pre-existing application programming interfaces (APIs).
Previous Legal Battles
This ruling follows a succession of legal disputes encountered by AliveCor. In March 2025, Apple successfully fended off AliveCor in an International Trade Commission (ITC) case, where AliveCor’s heart monitoring patents were nullified by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This ruling was confirmed on appeal, removing the threat of an import ban on the Apple Watch and effectively concluding AliveCor’s patent-related challenges against Apple.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling marks a crucial point in the ongoing legal struggle between AliveCor and Apple, underscoring the intricacies of antitrust law within the framework of technological advancements. As the health technology landscape continues to transform, the ramifications of this ruling may extend beyond this particular case, shaping how tech firms approach competition and cooperation in the future. For those curious about the comprehensive details of the ruling, it can be accessed [here](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/08/24-1392.pdf#z).

