A federal jury in California has sided with Masimo in a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, awarding Masimo $634 million in damages. The case centered on the blood oxygen monitoring capability of the Apple Watch, which Masimo argued infringed on its patent associated with low power pulse oximeter technology.
The main issue in the trial hinged on whether the Apple Watch could be deemed a “patient monitor” under Masimo’s patent. Apple argued that the definition of “patient monitor” should only apply to devices intended for continuous monitoring, claiming that genuine patient monitors cannot overlook critical medical events. Conversely, Masimo provided evidence indicating that the Apple Watch’s high heart rate notification function, which identifies heightened heart rates with 95% sensitivity, met the criteria for a patient monitor.
Apple countered this claim by stating that the feature only activates when a user remains stationary for a minimum of 10 minutes, thereby excluding the Apple Watch from the continuous monitoring category. Nevertheless, Masimo utilized the heart rate functionality to convince the jury that the Apple Watch conformed to the definition of a patient monitor, which was crucial to their argument.
In the end, the jury determined that the Apple Watch is indeed categorized as a patient monitor regarding Masimo’s patent, leading to the conclusion that Apple had violated Masimo’s blood oxygen sensor patent. The patent in question, numbered 10,433,776, lapsed in 2022, and the jury’s decision pertains to roughly 43 million Apple Watch units sold with the infringing capability.
Masimo sought damages ranging from $634 million to $749 million, while Apple maintained a position for a limit of $3 million to $6 million. The jury’s award of $634 million signifies a notable victory for Masimo in its quest to defend its innovations and intellectual property.
Following the verdict, Masimo stated that the ruling symbolizes a significant success in their ongoing efforts to protect their technological developments. On the other hand, Apple remarked that Masimo has filed lawsuits against the company in various courts, claiming over 25 patents, most of which have been ruled invalid. Apple further noted that the patent at issue in this case pertains to historical patient monitoring technology from several decades ago and announced intentions to appeal the verdict.
This case is separate from another current patent conflict between Apple and Masimo, which is presently under examination by the International Trade Commission regarding the blood oxygen features of the Apple Watch.
