technology

A lawsuit filed against Apple for infringement of its blood oxygen monitoring patents


The engadget technical report stated that in mid-2021, the medical technology company Masimo filed a lawsuit against Apple regarding the blood oxygen monitoring capabilities of the Watch Series 6.

The tech giant was accused of infringing five of Masimo’s pulse oximeter patents after introducing a device that had the ability to measure oxygen saturation in the blood, and a US International Trade Commission (ITC) judge ruled that Apple had in fact infringed one of Masimo’s pulse oximeter patents.

While the judge also concluded that the tech giant did not infringe the four other patents involved in the case, the ITC will now reportedly examine whether to impose an import ban on Apple Watches with this feature as Massimo requested when he filed his lawsuit.

The report added that the latest Apple watches, which are Series 7, 8, Urtla, and SE, have the characteristics of monitoring oxygen in the blood, and therefore the decision of the International Trade Center will affect them as well.

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani told MD+DI in a statement that his company is pleased that the judge “took this critical first step toward accountability.” Kayani went on to say that “Apple has similarly violated other companies’ technologies” and that “the ruling exposes Apple as a company that takes other companies’ innovations and repackages them.”

Meanwhile, Apple has accused Massimo of being the person who copied his intellectual property in his statement for publication. “At Apple, our teams work tirelessly to create products and services that empower users with leading health, wellness, and safety features.

A Masimo spokesperson said, “The company is trying to capitalize on these many innovations by offering a device that copies the Apple Watch and infringes intellectual property, while also trying to eliminate competition from the market. We respectfully disagree with today’s decision, and look forward to a full review by the Commission.”

The judge’s decision was only a preliminary ruling reflecting the findings of the International Trade Commission during the investigation, and the final ruling in the case will not be issued until May 10.

Related Articles

Back to top button