Apple faces a staggering $634 million penalty after a federal jury in California ruled the company infringed on Masimo’s patent. The patent protects technology used in Apple Watch’s pulse oximetry feature, which measures blood oxygen levels (SpO₂). This verdict marks a significant escalation in a legal battle that began in 2019.
Masimo, a medical technology leader from Irvine, California, accused Apple of recruiting former engineers and using proprietary technology without permission. Initially, Masimo claimed violations on over 20 patents, but most were dismissed except for a key patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,870,791. This patent covers a specialized method for processing light signals to accurately measure blood oxygen, even while the user is active.
Expansion of the Patent Violation
What makes this case notable is that the jury agreed the violation extended beyond the SpO₂ feature. Masimo successfully argued that Apple Watch’s workout mode and heart rate notification also infringe on this patent. These features use similar principles of multispectral light and motion noise filtering. This broadened scope means Apple’s entire biometric signal processing system for health monitoring is under scrutiny.
Apple argued that the patent expired in 2022 and covers generic technology widely used for decades. The company plans to appeal the verdict, but must still prepare to pay the $634 million pending the appeal outcome.
Business and Market Implications
In December 2023, US International Trade Commission (ITC) banned imports of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models in the US due to patent infringement. Apple responded by removing the SpO₂ feature from watches sold domestically and launching modified versions with re-engineered pulse oximetry technology. The new models cleared customs but Masimo has since filed a lawsuit challenging their approval. Meanwhile, ITC is reviewing whether the new versions still violate the patent.
Apple has also sued to overturn the import ban, creating a complex and ongoing legal battle. This saga highlights the high stakes involved in wearable health technologies, where legal risks can disrupt innovation and supply chains.
Why One Patent Can Impact Multiple Features
U.S. Patent No. 8,870,791 covers not just the hardware sensors but core signal processing methods, including:
- Differentiation of blood signals from motion artifacts
- Use of red and infrared light ratio calculations
- Model-based physiological correction algorithms
Since Apple Watch employs these techniques across various health functions, the patent claims affect multiple features at once. This approach shows how fundamental patents on algorithms and methods can influence an entire device ecosystem.
Broader Industry Ramifications
This case warns tech companies that developing health features requires navigating a tangled web of patent rights. If upheld, other wearable brands like Samsung, Google, and Garmin may need to examine their own algorithms for potential infringements.
Critics argue that patents like this may hamper innovation because pulse oximetry techniques date back to the 1970s. Some see it as a competitive weapon to block rivals rather than a true protection of novel inventions. As one industry voice put it, “Acquiring patents may be more profitable than building products.”
Apple’s Options Moving Forward
Apple faces three strategic choices:
- Appeal fully, claiming the patent is expired or overly broad
- License the technology from Masimo, though Apple historically avoids external dependencies
- Develop new proprietary technology from scratch, which involves significant time and costs but gains long-term freedom
Apple’s history of resilient legal defenses, like in disputes with Qualcomm and Epic Games, suggests it will vigorously contest the ruling.
This complex dispute originates from a single patent but its reach could reshape digital health innovation and wearable markets. Apple must balance costly legal challenges with maintaining competitive, feature-rich health devices. Meanwhile, consumers may see changes in features, availability, or pricing as the fallout continues. The battle over one patent underscores how intellectual property law increasingly governs the future of wearable health technology.
-
-
-
-
