Lawsuit Claims Patent Infringement by Apple Watch Models

Apple CEO Tim Cook unveils Apple Watch Series 7 during a special event at Apple Park in Cupertino, Calif., on Sept. 14, 2021. (Apple Inc/Handout via Reuters)

A patent dispute between Apple and medical device maker Masimo Corp. could lead to certain Apple Watch models being banned from getting imported into the United States.

In January, Monica Bhattacharyya, an administrative judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), had ruled that Apple Watch Series 6 infringed on one of Massimo’s patents involving the use of light sensors to identify blood oxygen levels in the device’s pulse oximeter. The case will now be reviewed by a full commission at the ITC that will issue a final ruling on the matter by May 10.

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Irvine, California-based Masimo had asked the ITC to halt imports of Apple Watch Series 6 which contain the disputed components. If ITC rules in Masimo’s favor, the commission can enforce a ban on the Apple Watches.

The judgment will also apply to models released after Apple Watch Series 6 that contain the components. Bhattacharya found no infringement by Apple on four other Masimo patents mentioned in the lawsuit.

In a January note, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tamlin Bason had pointed out that the first-round decision by ITC “may not provide sufficient leverage for the medical device maker to sway Apple into a licensing agreement.”

“We believe Apple may be able to design-around the infringed claims, thus reducing the risk of an import ban. Masimo’s best shot of a deal now hinges on a March trade secrets trial, assuming its claims survive summary judgment.”

Bond Denial, Masimo Royalty Payments

In addition to an exclusion order blocking the import of the Apple Watch models, Masimo had also requested a bond be set that amounted to the value of the infringing items, insisting that Apple’s products were harming people’s perception of pulse oximetry.

However, Bhattacharya dismissed the bond request, pointing out that there was no clarity on the alleged harm to public perception causing Masimo any injury.

In her ruling, Bhattacharya deemed that Apple had violated two claims on a Masimo patent. Bason pointed out that these patent claims do not go into the “heart of the technology” that monitors blood oxygen levels.

Bason pegs the chances of Masimo succeeding in pushing Apple into a licensing agreement at 60 percent. This could give Masimo around $50–300 million in annual royalty revenues.

Apple Versus Masimo Lawsuits

Masimo had filed the patent infringement lawsuit in June 2021. Joe Kiani, CEO of Masimo, called Bhattacharya’s ruling in January a decision that restores “fairness in the market.”

“We are happy that the ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) recognized Apple’s infringement of Masimo’s pulse oximetry technology and took this critical first step toward accountability,” Kiani said, according to a press release on Jan. 10.

“Apple has similarly infringed on other companies’ technologies, and we believe today’s ruling exposes Apple as a company that takes other companies’ innovations and repackages them.”

Apple had disagreed with Bhattacharya’s ruling, stating that it was looking forward to a full review by the ITC. In addition to the patent infringement lawsuit from June 2021, both Apple and Masimo filed multiple other lawsuits against each other.

In October 2022, Apple sued Masimo twice, claiming that the medical device maker aimed to push out Apple Watch from the market to make way for Masimo W1 watch, which was launched on Aug. 31. Apple also alleged that Masimo “copies Apple Watch and infringes on our intellectual property.”

In mid-December 2022, Masimo filed counterclaims accusing Apple of infringing on 10 of its patents as well as procuring patents through fraud. Apple was also blamed for unfair competition, antitrust law violation, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising.