Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.
The US Trade Court said the Apple Watch violated a Masimo patent for a blood oxygen sensor that is housed in a convex surface with a chamfer. This patent was filed after Apple started selling watches with a blood oxygen feature.
Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
I think the patent you're referring to has a priority date of 7/3/2008. That's way before the Apple Watch was even a thought. Am I mistaken? If so, what's the patent number for the one you're talking about?
EDIT: I think you're getting confused by the grant date, which can be years after the patent application was filed. Those are two different things; Apple wasn't submarined.
The two patents I looked up had a „priority date“ of 2008 and actual application dates of 2020, two years after the AW4 was released. The grant date was 2021, a year after application.
Does the priority date — the effective date of the claim of novelty — require extra proof, or is this legally clarified as the original date of patent validity, even if the actual application wasn’t submitted until twelve years later?
Does the patent office keep track of priority dates before an actual patent application, so that a potential violator (like Apple) has the chance to look them up when creating their own products?
I don't know enough about patent law to answer. I would note the wording "This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application (fill in the blank)" and referring to filings done years earlier, which is common.
But as far as "having a chance to look them up" it would be an effort in frustration. Patents are applied for with claims as general and all-encompassing as they believe the patent office allows, and getting the wording correct may take months or it may take years. Even then, deciphering whether the patent may apply to an unforeseen future product is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
We just had an article here with one of these broad and unspecific patent grants reported. Some claim(s) in it might apply to a plethora of control devices from many sources yet to come. How would they know for certain until the claim were adjudicated in court? So patents can serve as wonderful scare tactics to discourage all but the biggest, baddest, and most deep-pocketed companies. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3456177/#Comment_3456177 ; BTW, I think that particular Apple patent already has another filing with "this application is a continuation" and referencing applications from a few years earlier.
I did try to go through the history of the patents, both the '502 and '648 patents that ITC says that Apple Watch violated. The claims that the ITC says the Watch violates: "As a result, the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the [10,912,502] patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the [10,945,648] patent." All involve a user worn device that has a "plurality" emitters and receptors, those emitters and receptors could be arranged in a square, with a convex protrusion, chamfer, flat sidewalls. Basically, the Apple Watch sensor protrusion with a blood oxygen sensor in it, comprising a plurality of emitters and receptors.
These infringing claims did not appear in the series of continuation patents prior to the 16,212,537 patent, filed Dec. 6, 2018. Prior to that, the patents have much less specific claim language. The specificity of a user worn device with a convex protrusion with 4 emitters and receptors, arranged in a square, chamfers, and opaque sidewalls really appeared in these '502 and '648 patents in filed September 24 of 2020.
Apple announced and shipped the Watch Series 6 with O2 sensing by that September of 2020. Masimo started its court proceedings with Apple in January of 2020. These newly granted patents weren't granted until February of 2021, and of course, they immediately weaponized these patents that year for the ITC case.
There isn't any innocence with Masimo here. They didn't have a product or even a patent of the form that it would be in the Apple Watch. All of their patent claims were really for an O2 sensor in a finger clamp (user worn device et al). None of their figures was of a watch with an O2 sensor in it. They deserve nothing from Apple or any other smart watch maker with O2 sensors.
It's a mistake to assume any kind of naïveté from these companies regarding their patent filings. They have been playing the game for a long time. The issue is with the government, both executive and judicial for encouraging the behavior. The patent business has its own inertia that has been impossible to change.
Comments
These infringing claims did not appear in the series of continuation patents prior to the 16,212,537 patent, filed Dec. 6, 2018. Prior to that, the patents have much less specific claim language. The specificity of a user worn device with a convex protrusion with 4 emitters and receptors, arranged in a square, chamfers, and opaque sidewalls really appeared in these '502 and '648 patents in filed September 24 of 2020.
Apple announced and shipped the Watch Series 6 with O2 sensing by that September of 2020. Masimo started its court proceedings with Apple in January of 2020. These newly granted patents weren't granted until February of 2021, and of course, they immediately weaponized these patents that year for the ITC case.
There isn't any innocence with Masimo here. They didn't have a product or even a patent of the form that it would be in the Apple Watch. All of their patent claims were really for an O2 sensor in a finger clamp (user worn device et al). None of their figures was of a watch with an O2 sensor in it. They deserve nothing from Apple or any other smart watch maker with O2 sensors.
It's a mistake to assume any kind of naïveté from these companies regarding their patent filings. They have been playing the game for a long time. The issue is with the government, both executive and judicial for encouraging the behavior. The patent business has its own inertia that has been impossible to change.