Masimo Sues US Customs Over Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Workaround (9to5mac.com) 57
Last week, following a recent U.S. Customs ruling, Apple reintroduced blood oxygen monitoring to certain Apple Watch models in the U.S., sidestepping an ITC import ban stemming from its legal dispute with medical device maker Masimo. Today, Masimo fired back with a new lawsuit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 9to5Mac reports: The company says US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) overstepped its authority and violated due process when it reversed its earlier decision on August 1 and allowed Apple to restore the feature. Moreover, Masimo says it found out about the decision when Apple publicly announced the return of the feature: "It has now come to light that CBP thereafter reversed itself without any meaningful justification, without any material change in circumstances, and without any notice to Masimo, let alone an opportunity for Masimo to be heard. CBP changed its position on Apple's watch-plus-iPhone redesign through an ex parte proceeding. Specifically, on August 1, 2025, CBP issued an 3 ex parte ruling permitting Apple to import devices that, when used with iPhones already in the United States, perform the same functionality that the ITC found to infringe Masimo's patents. Masimo only discovered this ruling on Thursday, August 14, 2025, when Apple publicly announced it would be reintroducing the pulse oximetry functionality through a software update."
The company is now asking the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the CBP's decision, and reinstate the original ruling that "determined that Apple's redesigned watches could be imported only to the extent the infringing functionality was completely disabled." As reported by Bloomberg Law, Masimo says the following in its supporting brief: "Each passing day that this unlawful ruling remains in effect irreparably deprives Masimo of its right to be free from unfair trade practices and to preserve its competitive standing in the U.S. marketplace." Masimo further argues that CBP's move "effectively nullified" the ITC's exclusion order against Apple. Apple's appeal of that ban is still pending before the Federal Circuit.
The company is now asking the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the CBP's decision, and reinstate the original ruling that "determined that Apple's redesigned watches could be imported only to the extent the infringing functionality was completely disabled." As reported by Bloomberg Law, Masimo says the following in its supporting brief: "Each passing day that this unlawful ruling remains in effect irreparably deprives Masimo of its right to be free from unfair trade practices and to preserve its competitive standing in the U.S. marketplace." Masimo further argues that CBP's move "effectively nullified" the ITC's exclusion order against Apple. Apple's appeal of that ban is still pending before the Federal Circuit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Masimo's ITC judgement wasn't for blood oximetry. It cited two specific claims. One was for bevelled corners. I don't remember what the other was, but it was similar.
Well, if you knew what those reasons were it would probably answer your question. Blood oxygenation is pretty stable for healthy people but that's not necessarily the case for people with things like heart and lung conditions. It's also useful for detecting sleep apnea and estimating how severe
Re: (Score:2)
Masimo complains to ITC that Apple is infringing on its pulse oximetry patents. ITC says, "you have no complaint unless you have a domestic product."
Masimo concocts a plan for a watch real quick-like that includes their oximetry tech, complaint now passes muster, and Apple is found infringing, and imports are banned.
Apple then complains to ITC that Masimo's watch-that-really-isn't infringes on Apple's design patents... and wins
Re: (Score:2)
So ya, Masimo's ITC judgement was for blood oximetry. Patents US10912502B2 and US10945648B2.
The real question is how the hell do we have a manufacturer getting new Patents in 2020 over a technology invented in the 1970s? Considering patent protection is only for 20 years, and hand-worn LED-based oximeters have been around for almost 50 years at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
So ya, Masimo's ITC judgement was for blood oximetry. Patents US10912502B2 and US10945648B2.
The real question is how the hell do we have a manufacturer getting new Patents in 2020 over a technology invented in the 1970s? Considering patent protection is only for 20 years, and hand-worn LED-based oximeters have been around for almost 50 years at this point.
It was for power saving while measuring blood oxigen, not the measuement itself. Apple believe they have worked around the patent by moving processing to the phone, since the patent doesnt cover the device being split over two devices.
Re: (Score:2)
It was for power saving while measuring blood oxigen, not the measuement itself. Apple believe they have worked around the patent by moving processing to the phone, since the patent doesnt cover the device being split
Well we do not have access to Apple's source code, so we don't actually know what procedure they are using for processing sensor data and determining a measurement. It's possible they are simply saving raw readings and not saving power however the patents had described, and instead either n
Re:All this? For an..oximeter?? (Score:5, Informative)
It was for power saving while measuring blood oxigen, not the measuement itself.
No. It's for the measurement (3/4 wavelengths) and the signal processing that needs to be done on them, all done on a "user-worn device".
Power is part of the patent- but only in the context of this particular way of doing pulse oximetry.
They're getting around the patent by not doing the signal processing on the watch, since both patents describe the 3-wavelength signal process being done on the device.
No idea if that really flies, but that's the skinny of it.
Re: (Score:1)
If memory serves, apple got the tech by picking up a Masimo engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
They use 2-3 different wavelengths and have resilience against a billion things
Yes, I mean no doubt there have been developments in the hardware since then, and Masimo has a long history there. But using multiple light wavelengths is not a new thing either as early as ~2000s use of two wavelengths of light for measurement a red and infrared is standard.
If Masimo had a current invention regards to the principle used in the measurement or analysis of the plethysmographic waveform, then it seems like they shou
Re: (Score:2)
Each additional wavelength creates a new patentable invention.
Also- yes, implementation of it on a mobile device is also patentable.
A patent for a device with 1 wavelength is different than a patent for a device with 4 wavelengths.
Presumably bc patents on the measurement technique have been practiced for more than 20 years
Just because you put 4 wheels on a board, you didn't invent the F1 car.
Just bc you came up with a design to adapt the appliance into a wearable should not mean the patent process can get you 20 more years on the original tech whose patents already lapsed.
Actually, it does.
But either way- the ITC claims are not just about putting a "pulse oximeter on a wearable device".
This is why Garmin and Fitbit have not had teh same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't. I'm not going to find the decision again, but it found infringement of only specific claims in Masimo's patents. I'm sure the bevelled edges on the sensor housing help with something but they're not "blood oximetry." It's not even "blood oximetry in a watch," which is indeed what the referenced patents (in their entirety) are about.
The light blood oximeter was invented in 1972. Masimo's basic patents are all from the 90s and expired.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't.
It was.
From the ITC ruling:
As a result, the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent.
502:22. The user-worn device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of emitters comprise at least four emitters, and wherein each of the plurality of emitters comprises a respective set of at least three LEDs.
502:28. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure an oxygen saturation of a user, the user
Re: (Score:2)
That claim seems to have been the one that was invalidated by the court then restored on appeal. Anyway, it's still not pulse oximetry. It's pulse oximetry with multiple sensors, which is pretty trollish. Using multiple sensors to decrease noise has both a lot of prior art and is obvious.
Masimo also doesn't make a
Re: (Score:2)
That claim seems to have been the one that was invalidated by the court then restored on appeal.
I pulled the list of claims from the ITC ruling, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
What court invalidated parts of the ITC ruling?
Anyway, it's still not pulse oximetry.
Yes, it is.
It's pulse oximetry with multiple sensors, which is pretty trollish.
It's even more than that, and I mean... 90% of all patent application is pretty trollish.
In this case, it's multi-wavelength pulse oximetry on a wearable device with the emitters on a beveled protrusion.
Using multiple sensors to decrease noise has both a lot of prior art and is obvious.
Prior art does not invalidate a patent- that's why it's listed on... patents.
As for obvious? Doubtful. If that were the case- the patents for it wouldn't sti
Re:All this? For an..oximeter?? (Score:5, Informative)
Masimo's ITC judgement wasn't for blood oximetry. It cited two specific claims. One was for bevelled corners. I don't remember what the other was, but it was similar.
False. *APPLE's* claim and judgement for them was for rounded corners. Masimo's was about Pulse oximetry tech. They were forced to release a product so the ITC could render judgement against Apple, and then in return Apple was the one who filed a rounded corners claim against Masimo.
Re: All this? For an..oximeter?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's rounded corners patent was for a phone with rounded corners, a display with a grid of icons, AND a fixed tray of icons along the bottom. That's it. Samsung's launcher duplicated that to a T. Android's default l
Re: (Score:2)
Even today that holds - the iPhone has a paged grid of icons representing every app on the system. Android has a customizable set of screens which may hold apps, widgets or other things, and you can open a drawer which holds all the apps which may not be displayed in the grid.
While I suppose not really relevant to the history (or pulse oximetry), this is no longer true, and your description of Android is basically how modern iPhones also work. iOS has had widgets on the homescreen since iOS 14, released in 2020. You can also remove apps from your home screen and leave them only in the "app library," introduced in the same version. Guessing it's been a while since you've used an iPhone. :)
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time
Errr no. Samsung held no patent for rounded corners as a design patent which applied to a phone. Not back when the Apple case existed, not now. Design patents are product specific. They held one for picture frames which is not applicable in that legal proceeding, nor is it a defence against breaching another party's patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're mixing up an Apple design patent case against Samsung with the Masimo case against Apple. If you look up the ITC decision you'll find actual claim numbers from the patents. I've looked them up before if you want to dig through my posting history. I'm not going to do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US10945648B2 claim 30:
Re: (Score:2)
I retract my assertion that you're likely mixing them up.
So, the corrected statement is:
The claims had to do with 4-wavelength pulse oximetry on a protruding surface with beveled edges on a mobile device.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It appears this “new” technology that needs to be defended so voraciously, is basically an oximeter. As in that thing you can buy anywhere for 20 bucks.
There's pulse oximetry, and there's pulse oximetry.
Masimo's is stupid advanced, and patented to all fucking hell. They use LEDs of 2 or 3 different wavelengths, can't remember.
Apple hired a former engineer of theirs and implemented some of their patented goodies.
Masimo oximeters go for a little more than $20.
But more to the point, of ALL the measurements and readings that have ever been taken from my body signals, blood oxygen was the most consistent. Which basically made it the most pointless.
You.... think your SpO2 represents that of all humans?
Sure. I know there’s a reason we measure blood O2. But every day? On command with your watch? Someone please explain the demand here, because all I see is a feature scheme targeting hypochondriacs.
I think maybe you actually don't know what we measure SpO2.
Some people aren't hypochondriacs. They have actual medical disorders that require mo
Re: (Score:3)
"Someone please explain the demand here, because all I see is a feature scheme targeting hypochondriacs."
My lungs are damaged. I can get hypoxic around 5000 ft of elevation. Airlines fly around pressurized to around 8000 ft of elevation.
Being able to monitor my o2 both while I sleep as well as during times at high altitude is quite the handy thing to have. Most people would like to know when their o2 hits the low 80s. Luckily, I can somewhat control it with some concentration and breathing exercises. A
Another case of spurious litigation? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean what do you mean there was no material change of circumstances? There was a statue made of gold and corning glass - those are *two* materials
Gold Masimo gold (Score:3, Insightful)
If Masimo has any doubts, CBP reports to donnie.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, gold is now more expensive than platinum!
Re: (Score:3)
I've been telling them they need to make those Toll Collection Centers more obvious. Foreign companies can too easily miss them.
Re: (Score:2)
Which patents are involved? (Score:2)
Massimo claims that Apple violated their patents. Lots of news articles about the lawsuit out there but I can't find any information about which patents Apple is accused of violating...
Re:Which patents are involved? (Score:4, Informative)
Your google-fu is weak. I searched on: masimo apple patent dispute numbers
"The ITC found infringement on patents 10,912,502 and 10,945,648, which cover a "user-worn" device with multiple LEDs and photodiodes for physiological data capture. "
Bad news for the hordes.... (Score:2)
This is all bad news for the hordes of people who want to buy an Apple Watch who will now, naturally, be falling all over themselves to buy a device from, checks notes, some company named "Masimo".
I'm looking forward to the hip and fashionable marketing messages that will no doubt be forthcoming from "Masimo", as well what will no doubt be some truly fascinating products from that company. I sure hope it will be able to keep up with overwhelming demand!!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple believed they owned the concept of rounded corners. Fuck them, they like patent lawsuits they can suffer from one.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like fries with that?
Re: Bad news for the hordes.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet there are French fry patents. I mean, why wouldn't there be?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're paying. I've already had fries today once. But I won't say no...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Since the Watch is a redesign (Score:2)
It does not automatically infringe on patents; just because the old design was.
The burden of proof rests on the patent holder to demonstrate a new design still Infringes on the patents.
The concept of Pulse Oximetry using LEDs is not patentable, since it was invented 50 years ago. It's not a "patentable feature."
Also; My understanding is the Smart watch on its own does not have the feature. The feature can be re-created In software by pairing the watch with an iPhone. So the Smart watch and the iP
Re: Perhaps Since the Watch is a redesign (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The watch does have the feature. It needs specific leds and measurements to work. They disabled the feature to not be banned in the US.
Re: Perhaps Since the Watch is a redesign (Score:2)
Wording wise the apple watch has the hardware, the phone gets all the data and displays it on the iphone. This is a crap ass workaround as it still needs a phone to view. If they infringed, which they probably did since they collaborated or something along those lines they should just pay for the tech. I'm waiting for the lawsuit that states Apple is now false advertising the watch is capable of doing this (as it seems clear it can't without the phone).
Re: (Score:2)
The last iPhone update stated something to the effect that US residents can only view the data on their phones.
Their website says this:
Note: Blood Oxygen app measurements are not intended for medical use. For models of Apple Watch purchased in the United States on or after January 18, 2024 with part numbers ending in LW/A, the Blood Oxygen data analysis is performed on iPhone, and results can be viewed in the Health app. Learn how to identify your Apple Watch.
It still has the same features, it just displays it on the phone screen instead of the watch screen
Profit over Peoples Lives / Health (Score:2)
I dont care for Apple myself - but ultimately this is people arguing over who is entitled to profit from technology that saves lives and ultimate raises the cost of aforementioned technology and therefore limiting who has access to it.
Once again I see no reason to imagine we will deviate from the current trajectory of global socio-economic collapse in the next 5 -10 yrs
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the thing that gripes me. I got an apple watch specifically because my doc recomended it to me to keep an eye on blood oxygen (I have a slightly lower , not quite emphysema, but it could go bad, O2 level) and cos it'll call an ambulance if my heart does something stupid. Worked great for 6 months then this lawsuit happened and that functionality just disappeared. This stupid lawsuit actually puts me in physical danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it works again.
Out of curiosity, how many ambulances did it call in those 6 months?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could have just licensed the technology instead of repeatedly trying to steal it from a much smaller company. It's not like this would have affected their bottom line significantly or eaten into their enormous cash reserves.
Apple isn't the victim here. They got sued and lost, and instead of paying up are manipulating the courts to get it effectively overturned without even notifying the other company. If they had an actual valid case, they wouldn't be trying to sneak out from under the judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue it's paying back for developing the technology that saves lives. And the future technology that will save even more.
I mean, that's the basis for the patent system.
A patent troll scorned (Score:3)
Shouldn't Massimo's hell-comparative fury be with the Patent Office, rather than CBP?
Re: A patent troll scorned (Score:4, Insightful)
Their problem is that it isnâ(TM)t the same watch, and Apple would be stupid to do something in their new watch that infringed on these patents. So they have to sue Apple again for patent infringement. Which will fail if Apple isnt totally utterly stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not really a troll. They develop the technology and license it.
They don't just buy patents and sue.
Is ARM a patent troll for suing nVidia?
Utility patents should be banned ... (Score:2)
Both US10912502B2 and US10945648B2 are piss-poor patents. There's nothing novel there; it's just rearranging components from other manufacturers into a use case based on refining an existing use case and patenting that remixed use case. I'm not delusional enough to imagine we'll wake up and ban utility patents, but I am crazy enough to think that if we're going to let these things stand, then we need to have a federally mandated cap on what holders can charge for an idea. If there's one thing I've learned i