A U.S. federal jury in California has ruled that Apple Inc. must pay Masimo Corporation US $634 million after finding that Apple’s smartwatch infringed Masimo’s patent covering blood‑oxygen monitoring technology. The decision was based on features in the Apple Watch including its workout mode and heart‑rate notification functions, which the jury accepted as violating Masimo’s intellectual‑property rights.
Apple said it disagrees with the verdict and intends to appeal, noting that the patent in question expired in 2022 and that many of Masimo’s claims had earlier been invalidated. The legal dispute dates back several years, including a related move by the United States International Trade Commission in 2023 which blocked imports of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models over similar patent concerns.
For Apple the verdict presents both financial and reputational challenges. Financially, the award of US $634 million adds a notable liability, though in the context of Apple’s multi‑billion‑dollar revenues it is manageable. Strategically, the ruling underscores growing risks for tech companies in the rapidly evolving health‑monitoring marketplace, where innovations like pulse‑oximetry and wearable sensors are subject to intensive patent litigation. Boards and senior legal teams will need to reassess patent‑risk exposure and the durability of designs as health‑tracking features become standard in consumer devices.
From Masimo’s perspective the outcome is a significant win in its long‑running fight to protect its pulse‑oximetry and wearable‑technology innovations. It reinforces the value of its intellectual‑property portfolio and may bolster its position in ongoing trade‑commission reviews and future licensing discussions. For the broader wearable‑device industry this verdict signals that patent assertions can still carry substantial weight, even as companies strive for speed‑to‑market in health‑tech features.
Looking ahead, Apple’s appeal process may lead to adjustments in its product design and licensing strategy, while Masimo will likely push for broader enforcement of its patents and may seek further leverage over component‑suppliers and wearable‑device manufacturers. The case highlights that as consumer devices incorporate more advanced health‑monitoring functions, the intersection of tech and medical‑device regulation becomes increasingly relevant for risk assessment and governance
