A federal jury in California has ruled that Apple owes $634 million to medical-monitoring technology company Masimo for infringing on a patent related to blood-oxygen reading technology. This verdict centers on the Apple Watch’s workout mode and heart rate notification features, which Masimo claims violated its patent rights. An Apple spokesperson has expressed disagreement with the jury’s decision and announced plans to appeal.
Masimo described the verdict as a significant victory in their ongoing battle to protect its innovations and intellectual property. This lawsuit is part of a larger, contentious patent dispute between Apple and Masimo, based in Irvine, California. Masimo has accused Apple of not only infringing on its pulse oximetry technology but also of poaching its employees to gain access to proprietary information.
The legal conflict has had tangible consequences for Apple, as highlighted by a recent ruling from a U.S. trade tribunal that blocked imports of Apple’s Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches due to patent infringements. In response, Apple removed its blood-oxygen reading technology from the smartwatches but introduced an updated version in August with approval from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Further complicating matters, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is initiating a new proceeding to determine if Apple’s updated watches will face the same import ban. Additionally, Masimo is pursuing a separate lawsuit against U.S. Customs regarding the recent decisions, while Apple is challenging the import ban in a federal appeals court.
In previous legal encounters, a California judge declared a mistrial in Masimo’s trade-secret case against Apple earlier this year when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. In contrast, Apple won a small $250 verdict against Masimo in a Delaware case concerning accusations that Masimo’s smartwatches infringed two Apple design patents.
This ongoing battle reflects the growing tensions in the tech industry surrounding intellectual property rights and innovation. As these companies navigate their disputes and defend their technologies, the outcome may set precedents for future patent cases in the ever-evolving landscape of consumer technology. The hope remains that these legal contests can ultimately foster respect and innovation in the industry rather than stifle progress.