A federal jury in California has ruled that Apple must pay $634 million to Masimo Corporation for infringing on a patent related to blood oxygen monitoring technology. This decision marks an important advance in the long-running, legal-zoning battle between the two rivals. Their dispute has largely revolved around the Apple Watch’s functionality.
Masimo, best known for its innovative medical monitoring technologies, has filed lawsuits against Apple. The Richmond, VA-based company alleges that the technology giant illegally incorporated its proprietary pulse oximetry technology into the Apple Watch. The jury’s ruling comes as Apple has faced scrutiny over its blood oxygen monitoring feature, which has been a prominent selling point of its wearable devices.
The jury’s verdict in this case necessarily focuses on the blood oxygen monitoring element as it pertains to the Apple Watch. This technology has gone through multiple iterations since our original release. Apple Watch models, from Series 0 to the newly released Series 10, have always had this ability. A ban was instituted over patent infringement allegations. To address this concern, Apple recently released an improved version of the blood oxygen feature. Now, it uses an iPhone paired with the tablet to take those same readings.
Besides the statutory damages— $400 million — Masimo was awarded from damages in its suit against Apple, the lawsuit has already inspired additional legal challenges. Masimo lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They’re putting the pressure on the agency’s approval of Apple Watch imports, which has allowed Apple to continue distributing its products even after that patent infringement ruling. In the meantime, Apple has appealed directly to the appeals court to overturn the import ban on the Apple Watch.
Masimo has previously accused Apple of violating its patents. Further, they allege that Apple competed unfairly by stealing core staff members from them, including their own chief medical officer. These claims have further inflamed the feud between the two firms as they battle for dominance in the highly profitable health tech industry.
An Apple spokesperson responded to the ruling by stating, “The single patent in this case expired in 2022 and is specific to historic patient monitoring technology from decades ago.” This remark highlights Apple’s stance that the patent at the center of the case may no longer be relevant in today’s technological landscape.
Masimo expressed satisfaction with the jury’s decision, emphasizing its commitment to protecting intellectual property and innovations. The company stated, “This is a significant win in our ongoing efforts to protect our innovations and intellectual property, which is crucial to our ability to develop technology that benefits patients.”
Yet, as history teaches us, both companies are walking a tightrope of existing consumer protection laws. This ruling has the potential to set a large precedent for the development and marketing of health-monitoring technologies in consumer electronics.