Masimo, a medical sensor company, has filed a lawsuit against Apple. The case is being reported by MacRumors via Portal. The plaintiff argues that Apple engaged in the kidnapping of Masimo employees and the theft of trade secrets related to Masimo’s innovations for Apple Watch devices. It is noted that Apple hired Masimo’s chief physician, Michael O’Reilly, in 2013 and subsequently Marcelo Lamego, the technical director of Cercacor, a Masimo subsidiary. Masimo contends that these hires were orchestrated specifically to obtain access to the brand’s proprietary information. Apple maintains that staffing decisions are driven solely by employee qualifications and that Masimo’s so-called secrets have already been widely known within multiple companies for some time.
Masimo further alleges that Apple has secured five patents for a non-invasive method to measure blood oxygen saturation, or pulse oximetry, using information obtained through improper means. The company is seeking a cash settlement of 3.1 billion dollars and also co-ownership rights to the disputed patents. The legal dispute centers on questions of trade secret protection, the legitimacy of talent recruitment, and the potential cross-licensing of key technologies in the wearables market. The case highlights the tension between corporate collaboration and competitive secrecy in the rapidly evolving field of health monitoring sensors. For context, observers note that disputes of this kind can hinge on how broadly a company defines its confidential information and how clearly it marks and protects trade secrets within complex research ecosystems. In related coverage, industry commentators remark on the competitive landscape around smartwatches and the medical sensing capabilities that fuel them, including heart rate and oxygen saturation measurements, which are increasingly integrated into consumer devices. A detailed legal timeline and supporting filings are being reviewed by analysts who track intellectual property and employment practices within the tech hardware sector. At least one law firm involved in similar cases has indicated that the outcome could influence who controls access to foundational sensing technologies and who bears the risk of inventive disclosures. The broader implication for the wearables marketplace is a push toward clearer guidelines on trade secret protection while balancing the need for cross-company talent mobility. For readers seeking more background on the evolving relationship between device makers and sensor developers, industry summaries and court documents from market observers provide ongoing insight. In related news, a separate information source discussed the emergence of new wearables and the competitive dynamics driving innovation in this space. In this ongoing narrative, the industry continues to watch how disputes over knowledge protection and patent ownership shape the development of next-generation health sensors.