Apple’s Patent Problem: Masimo Case Highlights ITC Power
Introduction
The Apple vs. Masimo case before the Federal Circuit highlights key issues in U.S. patent enforcement, including the scope of ITC exclusion orders, product design in infringement analysis, and the trend of large companies choosing litigation over settlement.
Factual Background
Masimo alleges that Apple misappropriated its pulse oximetry technology by hiring away key employees after discussions for a potential collaboration fell through. The technology is used in Apple’s Series 6 and later Apple Watch models.
Procedural Background
The International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order in 2023, barring Apple from importing or selling smartwatches that use the technology. The Biden administration declined to veto the decision—an option that is rarely exercised—reinforcing the ITC’s power in trade enforcement. Apple’s attempts to pause the ban have been unsuccessful.
Issues
The core dispute centers on whether Apple’s use of pulse oximetry technology infringes Masimo’s patents. Apple argues that Masimo did not have a commercially available smartwatch at the time it filed the complaint, while Masimo maintains that prototypes are enough under the law.
Contentions of the Parties
Apple’s Contentions:
- Masimo did not have a commercially available smartwatch at the time it filed the complaint.
- The domestic industry requirement was not satisfied.
Masimo’s Contentions:
- Prototypes are enough under the law to support a complaint.
- Apple is attempting to alter well-established requirements to avoid infringement liability.
Reasoning & Analysis
The ITC’s exclusion order and the Federal Circuit’s decision not to pause the ban suggest that the courts are taking a strict approach to patent infringement in the wearables market. This underscores the ITC’s effectiveness as a forum for swift, impactful enforcement.
Implications
This case highlights the importance of carefully managing employee mobility when sensitive technology is involved. It also demonstrates how exclusion orders can force companies to quickly redesign products to comply with trade restrictions. The rare presidential decision not to overturn the ITC’s ruling illustrates the Commission’s significant leverage in patent disputes.
Final Outcome
Apple has removed the blood-oxygen feature from affected U.S. models and is pursuing a parallel customs review and ongoing court appeals. The case serves as a striking example of aggressive enforcement and high-stakes defense over health-related technology in the wearables sector.