Apple Watch, the world’s most popular smartwatch, is facing a potential ban in the U.S. over a patent dispute with Masimo, a medical device company. The dispute centers on the blood oxygen feature, which measures the oxygen levels in the blood using a sensor called SpO2. Masimo claims that Apple infringed on its patents and trade secrets when it added the blood oxygen feature to its Apple Watch Series 6 and later models.
In October, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in favor of Masimo and ordered Apple to stop importing and selling the affected Apple Watch models in the U.S. after December 25 unless the White House intervenes. This article will examine the patent dispute’s details and implications, the ban’s impact and consequences for Apple and its customers, and both parties’ legal arguments and strategies.
Apple Watch Faces Import Ban Over Masimo Patent Dispute
The ITC order results from a complaint filed by Masimo in January 2020, accusing Apple of poaching its employees and stealing its trade secrets to develop the Apple Watch. Masimo claimed Apple violated its patent on measuring blood oxygen saturation using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and photodetectors. Masimo also alleged that Apple copied its design features, such as the placement and shape of the sensors, red and infrared LEDs, and the display of the oxygen saturation percentage on the watch face.
In January 2023, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Apple infringed on Masimo’s patent and recommended an exclusion order against the Apple Watch. The ITC, a federal agency that deals with trade-related disputes, upheld the ALJ’s decision after a full review and issued the order on October 26, 2023. The order covers the Apple Watch Series 6 and later models with the blood oxygen monitoring feature, which Apple introduced in 2020.
However, the order is not final and enforceable until it passes the presidential review period, which lasts 60 days after the ITC’s determination. During this period, President Biden can veto or modify the order for policy reasons, such as public health, safety, or national security. The president can also delegate the authority to review the order to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), who can consult with other agencies and stakeholders before deciding. If the president or the USTR does not act within 60 days, the order will go into effect.
The Impact and Consequences of the Ban for Apple and Its Customers
the ban could cost Apple billions of dollars in lost revenue and market share, as the Apple Watch is one of the company’s fastest-growing and most profitable products. According to a report by Counterpoint Research, the Apple Watch accounted for 28% of the global smartwatch market and 40% of the U.S. smartwatch market in the second quarter of 2023.
The ban can also damage Apple’s reputation and brand image, as well as its customer loyalty and satisfaction. The Apple Watch is widely regarded as one of the most innovative and advanced smartwatches in the market, offering a range of features and functions that enhance the user’s health, fitness, and wellness.
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: 3 Upgrades, 1 Setback – The Inside Scoop You Need
The Legal Arguments and Strategies of Both Apple and Masimo
Apple has denied any wrongdoing and challenged Masimo’s patent’s validity and enforceability. They have argued that Masimo’s patent is invalid because it is obvious, anticipated, or rendered obvious by prior art, meaning it is not new or inventive enough to deserve patent protection.
Apple has also appealed the ITC’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the highest court handling patent cases. Apple has asked the court to keep the ITC’s order pending the appeal or grant an emergency motion to delay the order until the presidential review period is over.
Masimo, conversely, has maintained that its patent is valid and enforceable and that Apple has infringed on it willfully and deliberately. Masimo has argued that its patent is valid because it is novel, non-obvious, and adequately described, meaning that it is a genuine and original invention that deserves patent protection.
Also, Masimo has opposed Apple’s appeal and request for a stay or a delay of the ITC’s order. Masimo has argued that Apple has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal or a likelihood of irreparable harm if the order goes into effect.
The Reactions and Responses of Both Apple and Masimo
Apple has said it respects intellectual property and innovation and does not take or use confidential information from other companies. Apple has also said that it believes the ITC’s ruling should be reversed and will continue its efforts to appeal. Also, Apple has said that the ruling has no immediate impact on the sales of the Apple Watch and that it is confident that it will prevail in the end.
Masimo has said it is happy that the ITC recognized Apple’s infringement of Masimo’s pulse oximetry technology and took a critical first step toward accountability. Also, Masimo has said that the ruling strongly validates its efforts to hold Apple accountable for unlawfully misappropriating its patented technology. Masimo has also said that it hopes the ruling will help restore fairness in the market and that it will continue to pursue legal redress against Apple.