A federal jury in California delivered a major legal blow to Apple on Friday, ordering the tech giant to pay Masimo $634 million after finding that the Apple Watch infringed on pulse oximetry patents.
The verdict, returned on November 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, concluded that Apple violated all four of Masimo's asserted patent claims related to blood oxygen monitoring technology in approximately 43 million watches sold between 2020 and 2022.
The jury sided with Masimo's damages calculation after Apple argued it should only pay between $3 million and $6 million for the alleged infringement.
Apple said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal, while Masimo called the outcome a significant win in its ongoing efforts to protect its innovations and intellectual property.
The decision represents one of the most significant patent awards ever handed down in a consumer technology case in the Central District of California.
What Led to the $634 Million Verdict Against Apple
Masimo presented evidence to the jury that Apple incorporated its patented pulse oximetry technology into roughly 43 million Apple Watches sold between 2020 and 2022, seeking royalties ranging from $634 million to $749 million based on those unit sales.
The medical monitoring technology company argued that Apple's implementation of blood-oxygen sensing capabilities directly infringed patents covering a methodology for measuring oxygen saturation using light-based sensors.
Apple countered by proposing damages of only $3 million to $6 million total, a figure the jury ultimately rejected in favor of Masimo's lower range calculation.
The verdict stemmed from specific Apple Watch features that the jury determined violated Masimo's patent rights.
According to court filings, Masimo's attorney Brian C. Horne argued that every Apple Watch ever sold has been a heart rate monitor, citing internal Apple documents that describe the device as the most widely used heart rate monitor in the world.
The jury found that the Apple Watch's workout mode and heart rate notification features specifically infringed Masimo's protected intellectual property, which formed the basis for the substantial damages award.
Did you know?
Apple won a minimal $250 verdict against Masimo in Delaware federal court in October 2024 over design patent claims, but the jury ruled that Masimo's current generation smartwatches do not infringe Apple's patents, allowing Masimo to continue selling its products.
Why Did the Jury Rule Apple Watch Is a Patient Monitor
The case centered on whether the Apple Watch qualifies as a patient monitor under patent law, a critical determination that the jury made in Masimo's favor.
This classification proved pivotal because Masimo's patents specifically cover pulse oximetry technology used in medical monitoring devices.
Apple's counsel countered that the watch performs fundamentally different functions than clinical monitors and cannot replace critical medical event monitoring, such as traditional patient monitoring devices used in healthcare settings.
Despite Apple's arguments about functional differences, the jury concluded that the Apple Watch's continuous monitoring capabilities, workout tracking features, and health notifications brought it within the scope of Masimo's patent protection.
The determination effectively expanded the legal definition of patient monitoring beyond traditional clinical settings to include consumer wearable devices that continuously track health metrics.
This precedent could have significant implications for how courts evaluate patent infringement claims involving health monitoring features in consumer electronics going forward.
How Will the ITC Investigation Impact Apple Sales
In a separate development announced the same day as the verdict, the U.S. International Trade Commission said it would investigate whether Apple's redesigned Apple Watches still infringe Masimo's patents.
The ITC blocked imports of Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches in 2023 after finding patent infringement in the original blood oxygen implementation.
Apple removed the blood oxygen feature entirely to comply with the import ban, then reintroduced a redesigned version in August 2025 that processes measurements on a paired iPhone rather than on the watch itself.
The ITC set a six-month timeline to determine whether the new implementation violates the original import restrictions, examining whether the combination of an Apple Watch and an iPhone triggers the patented technology.
This investigation creates additional uncertainty for Apple's wearables business in the crucial U.S. market.
If the ITC finds that the redesigned feature still infringes Masimo's patents, Apple could face another import ban affecting current-generation watches, potentially forcing the company to remove blood oxygen monitoring capabilities entirely or to develop yet another workaround.
ALSO READ | Apple Introduces 15% Commission Rate for Mini App Platforms
What Is the History Behind This Patent Dispute
The dispute dates to 2020, when Masimo accused Apple of hiring away its employees and misappropriating pulse oximetry innovations that the medical device maker had spent years developing.
Masimo's lawsuit alleged that in 2013, Apple initiated discussions with Masimo about collaborating on specific technology to track heart rate, blood oxygen levels, and other health indicators.
According to Masimo's claims, Apple thereafter began recruiting Masimo employees who had access to confidential pulse oximetry technology and trade secrets.
A separate trade secrets case ended in a mistrial in 2023 after a California jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Apple stole Masimo's proprietary information by hiring former employees.
Meanwhile, Apple won a minimal $250 verdict against Masimo last year in Delaware over design patent claims, with a jury finding that discontinued Masimo smartwatch models infringed two Apple design patents.
However, the jury ruled that Masimo's current-generation watches do not infringe Apple's patents, allowing the medical device maker to continue selling its W1 series of smartwatches.
Can Apple Successfully Overturn the Judgment on Appeal
Apple faces an uphill battle in overturning the $634 million verdict, though several potential grounds for appeal exist. The company could challenge the jury's determination that the Apple Watch qualifies as a patient monitor under the relevant patent claims, arguing that consumer wellness devices operate in a fundamentally different category than medical monitoring equipment.
Apple might also contest the damages calculation methodology, particularly given the wide gap between Masimo's requested range and Apple's proposed $3 million to $6 million figure.
The appeals process will likely take years to resolve, during which Apple must contend with both the monetary judgment and the ongoing ITC investigation into its redesigned blood oxygen feature.
The dual legal challenges create significant uncertainty for Apple's wearables strategy, particularly as health monitoring capabilities have become central selling points for premium smartwatch models.
Whether through successful appeal, settlement negotiations, or technological workarounds, Apple will need to find a resolution that allows it to compete effectively in the rapidly growing health-focused wearables market while addressing Masimo's intellectual property claims.
The outcome of this case could reshape how technology companies approach health-monitoring features in consumer devices, potentially requiring more careful patent-licensing negotiations before launching products with medical-grade sensing capabilities.
For Apple, the immediate priority involves managing both the financial exposure from the verdict and the operational challenges posed by potential import restrictions on current-generation watches.
Comments (0)
Please sign in to leave a comment