A notable patent dispute centers on Apple’s use of light-based sensors in Apple Watch models to determine blood oxygen saturation, a feature that Masimo claims infringes one of its pulse oximeter patents. The dispute emerged from Masimo’s complaint against Apple, filed with the United States International Trade Commission, and is summarized in the ITC’s proceedings as reported by industry outlets. (ITC documentation attribution: ITC judge decision summary)
Masimo initiated the action in mid-2021, asserting that the Apple Watch Series 6 and subsequent models incorporated pulse oximetry techniques that relied on Masimo’s patented technology. The company pursued multiple patent infringement claims and asked the ITC to consider remedies that could halt the sale of affected Apple Watch products within the United States. (Legal filing summary attribution: Masimo v Apple ITC filings)
The ITC tribunal found that Apple did use another party’s intellectual property, but the ruling identified infringement tied to a single Masimo patent. This finding leaves the ITC with the task of evaluating whether the sales ban should extend to the relevant Apple Watch generations sold in the U.S. market. The final determination was scheduled to be issued on a date that would mark a pivotal moment for both companies in this ongoing dispute. (ITC decision timeline attribution: final decision date discussion)
Apple has publicly challenged the tribunal’s assessment, arguing against the infringement conclusion and the proposed remedy. In parallel, both industry observers and technology firms tracked the ITC’s process, anticipating a potential shift in the availability of Apple Watch models that rely on pulse oximetry should the ITC impose a sales restriction. (Industry reaction attribution: ITC ruling expectations)
Past reporting noted speculation about broader improvements to certain Apple Watch lines, with some outlets suggesting that meaningful enhancements to the Apple Watch Ultra and related devices would surface in subsequent product cycles. This context helps explain the commercial calculus behind Apple’s decisions and Masimo’s leverage in the proceedings. (Historical reporting attribution: product cycle expectations)