Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Edward is a member of the firm's Litigation practice group. His practice centers on copyright, trade secret, trademark, patent litigation, as well as complex commercial and contract disputes.  

core/paragraph

Edward is a member of the firm's Litigation practice group. His practice centers on copyright, trade secret, trademark, patent litigation, as well as complex commercial and contract disputes.

During law school, Edward participated in Intellectual Property Moot Court, served as a Student Attorney at the Intellectual Property Clinic, and externed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and U.S. Bank.

During law school, Edward participated in Intellectual Property Moot Court, served as a Student Attorney at the Intellectual Property Clinic, and externed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and U.S. Bank.

Fluent in Korean and conversant in Mandarin Chinese, Edward leverages his language skills to assist clients in cross-border and intellectual property matters.

Fluent in Korean and conversant in Mandarin Chinese, Edward leverages his language skills to assist clients in cross-border and intellectual property matters.

Outside the office, he enjoys staying active, playing basketball, and attempting to improve his golf game. &nbsp;

Outside the office, he enjoys staying active, playing basketball, and attempting to improve his golf game. &nbsp;

University of Minnesota Law School, J.D. Intellectual Property and Technology Concentration

Seoul National University, M.S. Technology Management, Economics, and Policy

Yonsei University, B.S. Technology Management

New York

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1285.OPINION.3-19-2026_2663002.pdf">Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 2024-1285 (Mar. 19, 2026)</a>, affirming the International Trade Commission’s determination that Apple violated § 337 of the Tariff Act, by importing Apple Watch models that infringed Masimo patents covering wearable blood oxygen measurement devices.



In June 2021, Masimo filed an ITC complaint alleging that Apple violated Section 337. After a five-day hearing, an administrative law judge found a violation based on claims 24 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648. On review, the Commission affirmed that ruling and reversed the ALJ’s ruling that claim 12 of the ’648 patent and claims 22 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,502 were invalid for lack of written description. The Commission nevertheless found no domestic industry for claim 22 of the ’502 patent. Finding a Section 337 violation based on claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent and claim 28 of the ’502 patent, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of the accused Apple Watches. Apple appealed, challenging domestic industry, validity, infringement, and prosecution laches.



The Federal Circuit affirmed. On domestic industry, Apple argued that Masimo failed to satisfy the technical prong because it failed to identify an actual patent-practicing article. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the technical prong analysis is not so rigid. It found that the  Commission properly identified the Masimo Watch as the relevant domestic industry article, supported by prototypes, witness testimony, testing data, and other credited circumstantial evidence. The Court likewise upheld the economic prong, concluding that the Commission did not err in crediting R&D investments, including investments in earlier prototypes.



The Court also rejected the invalidity challenges. As to obviousness, it held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the “Lumidigm” prior art did not teach measuring blood oxygen saturation as claimed. As to written description, it held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s determination that the asserted claims were adequately described in the specification.



On infringement, the Court affirmed the Commission’s plain and ordinary construction of “over” and “above” as referring to the relative placement of components within the device and agreed that “openings” and “through holes” could include transparent material. Finally, the Court rejected Apple’s prosecution laches defense, finding no abuse of discretion.

Edward J. Choi

Practices

Education

Admissions

Languages