A federal jury in California ordered Apple to pay ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ผ $๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป after finding that Apple Watch blood-oxygen features infringed a Masimo pulse oximetry patent. Consequently, the verdict marks one of the largest consumer-tech patent awards in the district and injects fresh momentum into a yearslong legal fight over health-monitoring technology in wearables. Therefore, both companies now move from trial strategy to appeal posture, while regulators and competitors watch closely.
๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ, Pulse Oximetry and โPatient Monitorโ Status
Masimoโs case centered on ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ก๐ผ. ๐ญ๐ฌ,๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฏ,๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ, which covers aspects of low-power blood-oxygen monitoring. The company argued that Apple integrated its patented pulse oximetry concepts into Apple Watch models, especially through ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ผ๐๐ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ and ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐-๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐. Consequently, Masimo framed the Apple Watch as a โpatient monitorโ under the patentโs language, not just a fitness gadget. Therefore, jurors needed to decide whether a consumer smartwatch that offers blood-oxygen readings and detects high heart rates fits that definition in a legal, not just marketing, sense.
๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ: 43 Million Watches and a Per-Unit Price Tag
The jury ultimately agreed with Masimoโs view and concluded that Apple incorporated infringing pulse oximetry features into roughly ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป Apple Watch units sold between 2020 and 2022. Consequently, they set damages at $634 million, a figure that aligns with the lower end of Masimoโs proposed royalty range. Apple argued for a far smaller award in the low single-digit millions; however, jurors accepted Masimoโs framing of both the technical overlap and the commercial impact. Therefore, the verdict assigns a meaningful per-device cost to the contested blood-oxygen functionality.
๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒโ๐ ๐ฃ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: Expired Patent and Plans to Appeal
Apple publicly disagrees with the decision. The company emphasizes that the patent, which covers older monitoring techniques, ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฎ and that courts or examiners knocked out many other Masimo patent claims over the years. Consequently, Apple presents the verdict as a narrow finding on a single, historic patent rather than a broad condemnation of its health-sensor roadmap. Therefore, Apple plans an appeal that challenges both infringement and damages, while it keeps pushing newer watch models and revised implementations into the market.
๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฆ๐จโ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐, Protecting Pulse Oximetry Innovation
Masimo describes the outcome as ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ถ๐ป in its push to protect clinical-grade pulse oximetry innovations. The company has long argued that it pioneered core techniques that make reliable oxygen-saturation readings possible on constrained devices, then watched a much larger rival integrate similar capabilities into mass-market wearables. Consequently, Masimo presents this verdict as validation that its IP still matters after years of litigation, ITC filings, and trade-secret claims. Therefore, the company signals that it will continue to defend its portfolio aggressively, especially in consumer and prosumer health devices.
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ด๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ: A Yearslong Apple Watch Health-Sensor Dispute
The verdict does not appear in a vacuum. Masimoโs clash with Apple stretches back to 2020, when the health-tech firm sued over alleged employee poaching and misuse of oximetry know-how in Apple Watch models. Consequently, Masimo painted a picture of talent acquisition followed by rapid patent filing and product integration around pulse oximetry. Meanwhile, Apple insisted that it pursued blood-oxygen features through its own R&D and challenged Masimoโs patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, both sides built a dense litigation history long before this particular jury even heard opening arguments. Wikipedia
๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐, Import Bans, Feature Removals, and Redesigns
Regulators also play a central role. In 2023, the US International Trade Commission concluded that certain Apple Watch models infringed Masimo patents and issued an import ban on blood-oxygen enabled devices such as Series 9 and Ultra 2. Consequently, Apple briefly halted sales and removed blood-oxygen functionality from affected watches in the United States. Later, Apple introduced a redesigned measurement implementation that US Customs cleared for import. Masimo, however, challenged that approval in court and argued that Customs effectively created a loophole in the ITC exclusion order. Therefore, the ecosystem now juggles jury verdicts, trade rulings, and customs decisions that may evolve in parallel with this new damages award.
๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ง๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ข๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐
This case highlights how health-monitoring features turn consumer gadgets into regulatory and legal flashpoints. Blood-oxygen sensors, heart-rate notifications, and workout modes blur boundaries between wellness and clinical monitoring. Consequently, courts and regulators now decide whether a device behaves enough like a โpatient monitorโ to trigger stricter patent interpretations and oversight. Therefore, every smartwatch maker, fitness tracker vendor, and sensor supplier needs to consider how patent portfolios, standards, and clinical claims intersect with consumer features.
Moreover, the verdict underscores how supply-chain and product decisions depend on IP strategy, not just engineering. When an import ban hits, companies cannot simply push a software update and move on; they need credible redesigns, regulatory approvals, and, in some cases, settlement options. Consequently, in-house counsel and product leaders must treat health-sensor innovation as a joint legal-technical program rather than an isolated feature sprint.
๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ก
Wearable vendors increasingly rely on metrics like blood oxygen, heart variability, and sleep stages to differentiate their devices. However, this verdict shows that pulse oximetry and related signal-processing techniques sit in dense patent thickets. Consequently, late entrants who copy successful feature sets without deep patent diligence face significant retroactive costs. Therefore, smaller players might favor licensing deals or white-labeled sensor stacks from established med-tech firms instead of building everything in-house.
For hospitals and clinicians, the ruling reinforces the commercial value that Masimo and similar companies attach to validated sensor technology. Meanwhile, consumers mainly care about whether features remain available, which means that legal outcomes can influence what watch they buy and what capabilities it offers in their region. Consequently, health systems that integrate device data into care pathways should track legal developments alongside regulatory approvals.
๐ข๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐๐: What Product and Legal Teams Should Do
Technology companies that ship health-related sensors should first map their critical features against existing patents, standards, and clinical claims. Next, they should align IP, regulatory, and engineering teams around a single view of risk. Moreover, they need contingency plans: alternate suppliers, fall-back feature sets, and communication templates for customers if legal outcomes force rapid changes. Therefore, this verdict serves as a case study in why IP strategy belongs in product roadmaps, not just in legal filings.
FAQs
Q: Does this verdict mean Apple must immediately remove blood-oxygen features from current Apple Watch models?
A: The verdict addresses damages for past infringement tied to a specific patent. Therefore, it does not automatically remove current features, especially since Apple already introduced redesigned implementations during earlier ITC proceedings.
Q: Can the $634 million award change on appeal?
A: Appeals can reduce, increase, or uphold damages, depending on how higher courts view infringement findings and legal instructions. Consequently, both sides now face another multi-year phase of briefing and argument rather than a quick resolution.
Q: Why did jurors focus so much on โpatient monitorโ status?
A: The patent language and Masimoโs argument relied on whether the Apple Watch functions as a patient monitor. Therefore, that classification helped determine whether the patented techniques apply to a consumer smartwatch with health features.
Q: What should other wearable makers learn from this case?
A: Vendors should treat health-sensor IP as strategically critical, run thorough freedom-to-operate analysis, and plan for regulatory scrutiny. Moreover, they should design features and marketing language with patent landscapes and clinical claims in mind.
