Amid its multifront legal battle with Apple over its smartwatch’s blood oxygen sensors, Masimo has claimed new ground—including a significant patent infringement verdict in federal court, plus the reopening of its case to block pulse-oximeter-equipped Apple Watches from being imported into the U.S. market.
A federal jury in California sided with the patient monitor maker and awarded $634 million in damages—spanning patent claims linked to the Apple Watch’s abnormal heart rate notifications and methods of switching off those alerts during workouts and other periods of high activity. The tech giant has said it plans to appeal.
Meanwhile, Masimo, in a somewhat understated statement, said: “We are pleased by this outcome, and appreciate the time and attention given to our case by the court and the jury.”
The long-running case was first filed in early 2020 and saw the patent at issue expire in mid-2022. However, jurors still felt the Apple Watch infringed on medical patient-monitoring claims, despite it being billed as a consumer-focused device.
“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,” Masimo added. “We remain committed to defending our IP rights moving forward.”
At the same time, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced it would once again evaluate whether certain Apple Watch imports should be banned from entering the country.
The ITC previously closed the door on the wearable’s blood-oxygen features, pushing Apple to start selling pulse-ox-free Apple Watches in early 2024—but the company received a preliminary customs green light earlier this year by proposing a workaround.
After the 18-month hiatus, Apple announced in August that—instead of the Apple Watch taking sensor readings and calculating a result—those numbers would instead be crunched on the iPhone itself, circumventing Masimo’s patent on “user-worn devices.”
Masimo sued U.S. Customs and Border Protection within a week, saying it only learned of the legal changes when Apple touted them in a press release and that the agency lacked the authority to override the ITC.
Masimo later petitioned the commission to expedite an investigation into whether Apple’s redesigned approach still violates its patent rights. The ITC issued an order last week calling for the modifications to be assessed by one of its administrative law judges within the next six months.
In an analyst note, BTIG's Marie Thibault told investors: “We think the pendulum has clearly swung toward MASI in these legal fights.”
“We think this may increase the chances of a positive resolution for MASI, whether a settlement between the two parties, a move to start negotiations, or some kind of monetary-based agreement,” added Thibault, managing director and the firm’s medical technology and digital health analyst—who also noted that the same California federal court heard arguments between the two companies earlier this year in a separate trade secrets case but has yet to issue a verdict.