A federal jury in California has ruled in favor of medical-monitoring technology company Masimo, ordering Apple to pay $634 million for infringing on a patent related to blood-oxygen reading technology. This decision focuses on features within the Apple Watch’s workout mode and heart rate notifications, which Masimo argues violated its patent rights. Apple has expressed its disagreement with the verdict and intends to appeal the ruling.
Masimo characterized the verdict as a substantial win in its effort to defend its innovations and intellectual property. The lawsuit forms part of a larger, contentious dispute between the Irvine-based Masimo and Apple, where Masimo has accused Apple of infringing its pulse oximetry technology and unlawfully poaching its employees to access proprietary information.
The legal issues have had significant ramifications for Apple. Recently, a U.S. trade tribunal barred imports of Apple’s Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches due to these patent infringements. In an attempt to navigate these accusations, Apple removed the blood-oxygen reading capability from its smartwatches but later launched an updated version in August, which received clearance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The situation is further complicated by an ongoing investigation by the International Trade Commission (ITC) aimed at determining whether Apple’s revised watches will face the same import restrictions. Alongside this, Masimo is pursuing a separate lawsuit against U.S. Customs regarding recent rulings, while Apple is contesting the import ban in a federal appeals court.
Previously, a California judge had declared a mistrial in Masimo’s trade-secret lawsuit against Apple, due to a deadlocked jury. Conversely, Apple secured a minor victory with a $250 ruling against Masimo in Delaware regarding claims of smartwatch patent infringement.
This unfolding legal battle underscores the increasing tensions in the technology sector over intellectual property rights and innovation. As both companies work through their disputes and defend their technological advancements, the outcomes could establish notable precedents for future patent litigation within the rapidly changing consumer technology arena. Optimistically, this legal friction may ultimately encourage a greater respect for innovative ideas and drive forward momentum in the industry.