The $250 (yes, there’s no missing ‘M’ at the end of that number) that Apple got in the patent infringement case against Masimo might seem funny — as John Gruber wryly noted, it’s just enough to buy one Apple Watch SE.
But what was even funnier is that both Apple and Masimo couldn’t admit what the case was really about for the respective parties…
What the patent infringement case claimed to be about
Apple argued that health tech company Masimo had infringed on its design patents by copying the look of the Apple Watch and its charger.
Apple won the case, but was only awarded a nominal amount of $250, the smallest amount the court could impose. In other words, Masimo may have infringed Apple’s patents, but no financial damage was caused to the Cupertino company.
Most people had never heard of Masimo’s watch, it didn’t compete in the consumer electronics space, and you would need a microscope to see Masimo’s sales figures for the device.
What it was really about
But as patent expert Florian Mueller notes, that wasn’t what the case was about. It was Real about the O2 sensor patent infringement case brought by Masimo against Apple.
In theory, this is a completely unrelated matter. In practice, not so much. If you need a quick summary, here’s one I prepared earlier:
In 2013, Apple reportedly contacted Masimo to discuss a possible partnership between the two companies. Instead, Masimo claims, Apple used the meetings to identify employees it wanted to poach. Masimo later called the meetings a “targeted effort to obtain information and expertise.”
Apple did indeed hire a number of Masimo employees ahead of the launch of the Apple Watch, including the company’s Chief Medical Officer.
Masimo CEO Joe Kiani later expressed concern that Apple may have tried to steal the company’s blood oxygen sensor technology. The company describes itself as “the inventors of modern pulse oximeters,” and the technology is used in many hospitals.
A complaint to the International Trade Commission resulted in a compromise, in which Apple was ordered to remove the feature from new watches sold in the US from January 18 this year. It was not required to disable the feature in watches already sold, but could not include it in new watches.
The lawsuit resulted in five of Masimo’s claims being dismissed and a jury unable to reach an agreement on the rest. A new trial will then take place on a date yet to be determined.
Masimo got an injunction against the O2 sensor in Apple Watches because it makes its own smartwatches with this feature. Mueller points out that fact was so essential until the order is granted.
What Apple hoped to achieve with its own case was to ban the sale of Masimo smartwatches.
The short version is that if Masimo had not been able to continue selling its own smartwatch, they would have lost a legal basis to prevent Apple from selling smartwatches.
Apple couldn’t admit its real motivation
But the iPhone maker couldn’t admit that this was its goal.
If Apple had said that the only reason it wanted to obtain an injunction was to eliminate Masimo’s domestic industry, that would simply have been outside the scope of the patent injunctions under the law. [the key precedent case]. The purpose of a patent injunction is not to lift another patent injunction (or, in this case, a US import ban, which is an injunction by another name).
Masimo couldn’t admit its motivation either
Masimo isn’t really interested in selling a smartwatch, it just wants to be able to demonstrate that it is using its patents in this area. The company probably sells almost none, but the company can’t admit that.
If Masimo’s lawyers had argued that the company’s turnover is negligible and Apple is therefore not entitled to an import ban, Apple would have used those statements against Masimo in the appeal against the Apple Watch ban. Apple’s main argument on appeal concerns Masimo’s alleged inability to meet domestic industry requirements.
Apple won in theory, but lost in practice
The court accepted that older designs of the Masimo watch did indeed infringe Apple’s design patents, but not the design patents current An. This means that Masimo can continue to sell the current model and thus maintain the legal basis behind its ban on the Apple Watch.
Both ITC and legal actions against Apple could still go either way, so what happened here isn’t final – but it does mean that even though Masimo lost this lawsuit, it actually came out ahead in terms of what each company was really trying to do. doing. reaches.
Photo by Elijah Mears on Unsplash
FTC: We use monetized auto-affiliate links. More.
