Apple and Masimo’s patent and trade secret dispute has intensified through lawsuits as Apple defends its innovations and Masimo’s claims are rejected in court.
Apple and medical equipment maker Masimo have been embroiled in lawsuits highlighting the high-stakes nature of intellectual property in technology. Initially rooted in Masimo’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation, the dispute has expanded to include patent infringement claims across multiple states and legal venues.
The bench trial starts Tuesday. Here’s what’s at stake, and how Apple plans on defending itself.
The trade secret case in California
The legal battle between Apple and Masimo began in January 2020, when Masimo, a manufacturer primarily focused on hospital equipment, accused Apple of misappropriating trade secrets related to Apple Watch technology. Masimo claimed Apple used these alleged trade secrets in its wearable technology.
However, the case faced significant hurdles during the 2023 trial in California. Critical claims made by Masimo were dismissed outright, with the jury leaning heavily in Apple’s favor on remaining issues, casting doubt on the uniqueness of the supposed trade secrets.
As the trial proceeded, the court found Masimo’s alleged “valuable technical trade secrets” to be relatively minor elements — such as the use of conventional materials and techniques in quality control processes — that lacked originality or proprietary value. The jury voted 6 to 1 in favor of Apple on these claims.
Furthermore, the judge ruled against Masimo’s claims regarding Apple’s hiring practices, noting that employees can move between companies. Masimo also asserted that Apple infringed on 17 patents, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ultimately invalidated claims on 15 patents.
The Federal Circuit later affirmed this decision. With its case continuing to weaken, Masimo voluntarily abandoned claims for punitive damages, lost profits, and a demand for $1.85 billion in unjust enrichment, leaving it with minimal grounds for financial restitution.
Masimo no longer seeks monetary compensation for trade secrets previously valued at billions.
International Trade Commission case
Frustrated with California litigation, Masimo filed a complaint with the ITC in 2021, requesting a ban on Apple Watch sales in the U.S. due to patent infringement. However, evidence showed Masimo had copied Apple’s design, reversing its claims.
The judge dismissed Masimo’s copying allegations because they lacked credible evidence. The ITC found Apple infringed on only five claims across two patents, excluding Apple Watches with a blood oxygen sensor.
Apple redesigned and got Customs approval to continue sales by January 2024. The exclusion order lasted only a day, causing minimal business impact. The company appealed the ITC’s decision to the Federal Circuit, seeking to overturn the exclusion order and restore its blood oxygen feature.
Patent infringement case in Delaware
Parallel to the ITC case, Apple filed a lawsuit in Delaware, accusing Masimo of patent infringement. In response, Masimo countersued, challenging Apple’s patent validity and attempting to excuse its alleged infringement.
The litigation in Delaware became more complex when Masimo launched its W1 consumer watch in January 2022. Later, it was shown to replicate the core design elements of the Apple Watch, including a patented design and wireless charging features.
In October 2024, a jury sided with Apple, determining that Masimo’s W1 watch infringed on Apple’s patents. Evidence suggests Masimo rushed to develop the W1 to establish grounds for the ITC’s “domestic industry” requirement, relying on Apple’s design elements.
Despite Masimo’s attempts to invalidate Apple’s patents, the USPTO upheld most of Apple’s claims. Apple continues to pursue full legal recourse to protect its intellectual property.
