-
Ninth Circuit Affirms Defeat Of Heart Rate Data Monopolization Claims
01/21/2026On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to grant Apple summary judgment against claims that it monopolized the market for heart rate analysis applications on Apple Watch. AliveCore, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 24-1312 (9th Cir., Jan. 8, 2026). Medical technology startup AliveCor, Inc. accused Apple of violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act by blocking third-party access to data calculated by an algorithm that Apple abandoned after it upgraded Apple Watch’s operating system. The district court held defendant’s conduct constituted per se lawful product improvement. In affirming summary judgment for defendant on different grounds, the Ninth Circuit held that the tech giant had no duty to deal with plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims failed as a matter of law.
Plaintiff developed software to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation by analyzing heart rate data calculated by defendant’s smartwatch device. When defendant implemented an operating system update to its smartwatch, it adopted a new algorithm to compute heart rate data. After a few years and upon further upgrades, defendant removed its old algorithm from its smartwatch and stopped sharing the data calculated by the old algorithm with third-party software developers, including plaintiff. Although defendant shared the new algorithm’s heart rate data with third parties, plaintiff’s software required the old algorithm’s data to accurately detect atrial fibrillation. Plaintiff brought Section 2 monopolization and attempted monopolization claims, alleging defendant denied third parties access to its original heart rate data for the purpose of excluding competitors to its own irregular heart rhythm detection application from the market for smartwatch-based heart rhythm analysis software.
In district court, defendant relied in-part on Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP, 592 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2010) to support the proposition that its operating software update constituted a bona fide product improvement and therefore was per se lawful. In the alternative, defendant argued its conduct merely amounted to a refusal to deal, conduct generally not considered anticompetitive under antitrust laws. The district court sided with defendant, holding that defendant’s upgrade was per se legal conduct under Allied Orthopedic and declining to reach defendant’s refusal to deal arguments.
On appeal, plaintiff noted that, in Allied Orthopedic, the Ninth Circuit indicated that a defendant discontinuing an old technology may be assessed as separate, potentially anticompetitive “associated conduct,” even when the introduction of a new system is a genuine product improvement. In this case, plaintiff contended that defendant ceasing to share its old algorithm’s data was a separate action from defendant’s product upgrade, and that ending plaintiff’s access to the old data was not automatically shielded as per se lawful conduct under Allied Orthopedic.
The Ninth Circuit declined to rule on whether defendant engaged in separate associated conduct by discontinuing its old algorithm, finding that plaintiff’s allegations were properly assessed under a refusal to deal analysis. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offs. of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), the Sherman Act does not impose on businesses a general duty to deal with other parties. The Court found plaintiff failed to meet one of the narrow exceptions to the duty to deal rule. One exception, the essential facilities doctrine, posits defendants can violate antitrust laws when they refuse to grant access to a resource necessary for competition within its control. Although the essential facilities doctrine has neither been endorsed nor repudiated by the Supreme Court, it has been adopted in the Ninth Circuit.
The Court held the essential facilities doctrine was inapposite. The Court further noted that defendant’s old data could not reasonably be considered essential, as defendant competes in the heart rhythm monitoring software market without utilizing its previous algorithm. Plaintiff argued that presently accessible data enabled it only to develop only an inferior version of defendant’s program, but the Court held that defendant had no obligation to provide a competitor with whichever data the competitor believed it required to develop a competitive product.
Having concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the essential facilities doctrine, and noting plaintiff did not argue for a separate exception to the general duty to deal rule, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendant.
