A federal jury in California ruled Friday that Apple must pay $634 million to medical device maker Masimo after finding the iPhone company infringed a patent covering blood oxygen-monitoring technology. The verdict adds a new chapter to a high-stakes fight over features in the Apple Watch and the future of wearable health tech.
The decision arrives after years of litigation and regulatory battles between the two companies. It centers on technology used to estimate blood oxygen levels, a selling point for recent Apple Watch models. The award, among the larger patent damages in recent years, signals growing legal risk for consumer tech firms moving deeper into health features.
How the Dispute Reached a Jury
Masimo, known for hospital-grade pulse oximetry devices, has argued that Apple adopted its technology and hired key employees to help bring similar features to the Apple Watch. Apple has denied wrongdoing and has said its teams developed the feature independently. The jury’s finding on patent infringement now gives Masimo a major win on one front of a multi-pronged legal clash.
U.S. regulators have already been involved. In 2023, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that certain Apple Watch models infringed Masimo patents covering pulse oximetry. Apple briefly paused U.S. sales of affected models before resuming with software changes while appeals proceeded. The company has maintained that its watch meets legal requirements and that Masimo’s patents should be narrowed or invalidated.
What the Jury Said
A federal jury in California ruled Friday that Apple must pay medical device maker Masimo $634 million for infringing a patent on blood oxygen-monitoring technology.
The verdict did not immediately include further remedies such as an injunction. But the nine-figure award raises pressure on Apple as it navigates related cases and ongoing appeals. It also strengthens Masimo’s negotiating position in any settlement talks.
Implications for Wearable Health Tech
The case highlights the stakes in bringing clinical-style measurements to consumer devices. Pulse oximetry relies on sensors and algorithms to estimate oxygen saturation in blood, which can be useful for fitness, sleep tracking, and wellness alerts. Masimo has long sold hospital systems on the accuracy of its technology. Apple has marketed the Apple Watch as a health tool, while warning that its readings are not a medical diagnosis.
Industry analysts say large patent awards can influence product roadmaps and licensing strategies. Companies may face higher costs or delays as they redesign features to avoid infringement. Consumers could see feature changes, as happened when Apple adjusted watch functionality during the import dispute.
Positions From Both Sides
Masimo has framed the dispute as a defense of its research investment, saying competitors should license its technology rather than copy it. Apple has responded that it respects intellectual property and builds its products with in-house innovation. The jury’s decision addresses one patent, but the wider conflict spans multiple patents and claims.
- Masimo has pursued both patent and trade secret claims in federal court.
- Apple has challenged the validity and scope of Masimo’s patents and appealed regulatory rulings.
- Sales and feature availability for Apple Watch have shifted at times due to legal actions.
What Comes Next
Apple is expected to appeal the verdict, which could reduce or delay payment. Post-trial motions and potential settlement discussions are likely. Parallel proceedings at the ITC and in appellate courts will shape whether product changes or licensing agreements are required long term.
Investors and product teams across the sector will watch how courts define the boundaries between medical-grade inventions and consumer health features. Clearer lines could prompt more licensing deals or inspire new technical approaches to avoid contested patents.
For now, the jury’s decision gives Masimo momentum and adds a large potential liability to Apple’s legal docket. The outcome may influence the next generation of wearables, where accuracy claims and regulatory compliance are increasingly central to product design and marketing.
The key questions ahead: Will appeals trim the award? Will the companies settle? And how will future watches balance ambitious health features with the rising legal and regulatory costs of bringing them to market?
