Apple Watch import ban up to Biden administration after ITC order
Masimo's patent lawsuit against Apple may end in an Apple Watch ban after an ITC order, but it's up to President Biden's administration and potential appeals that will follow.

Apple Watch sensors
Masimo filed a lawsuit with the US District Court in 2020 then the ITC in 2021 alleging Apple stole trade secrets and violates patents with the Apple Watch blood pulse oximeter. The ITC ruled in favor of Masimo in January, but the District Court jury trial ended in mistrial and hasn't resumed.
According to a report from Reuters, the ITC has issued an order that could result in an Apple Watch ban on products that violate Masimo's patents. While the order wasn't specific, that would likely include all models released since the Apple Watch Series 6 but not including Apple Watch SE.
The order must go through presidential review within the next 60 days. Apple will be able to appeal the decision if President Biden's administration bans the Apple Watch models from import to the US, so an actual sales ban isn't yet imminent.
"Masimo has wrongly attempted to use the ITC to keep a potentially lifesaving product from millions of U.S. consumers while making way for their own watch that copies Apple," an Apple spokesperson said. "While today's decision has no immediate impact on sales of Apple Watch, we believe it should be reversed, and will continue our efforts to appeal."
Apple previously counter sued Masimo in 2022, claiming the company sought to clear the path for its own competing smartwatch. That trial hasn't made any progress.
Another lawsuit alleges patent infringement and asks for an Apple Watch ban, but it is from a company called AliveCor. The ITC ruled against Apple in that case, but the ruling is on hold while the validity of AliveCor's patents are investigated.
It isn't clear exactly how long these lawsuits will take or what the ultimate rulings will be. Even if the ITC successfully bans specific Apple Watch models from import, Apple could have altered its designs enough in later models to prevent them from being banned.
Since the ITC hasn't specified which Apple Watch is meant to be blocked from import, Apple may only have to stop sale of a three year old device and pay fines. The best case scenario of course is overturning the verdict and preventing any kind of ban.
These cases will be going on for a long time yet. Stay tuned for more information as it arrives.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Seems like it would be cheaper than all the legal costs in the end.
It is not the first time a company has been invited to Apple to discuss a partnership on some feature, only to discover later that it was all a ruse. Apple was only interested in seeing what they came up with and how it was implemented, saving Apple time and expense deciding how to proceed without sharing the fruit.
IMHO, any company should be extremely wary if Apple reaches out to them, claiming interest in some product they have. I've had two similar though much smaller situations over the years. A certain boat manufacturer got me on the first one. Lesson learned. With the second I required money up-front and my own ND agreement for even a peek at what we had come up with.
https://www.cablesandsensors.com/pages/history-of-pulse-oximetry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry According to the article there are huge limitations. The research and development is very much on going, and nothing is certain or cast in stone. So any company can come up with, or is free to come up with a better solution?
One thing that is ironic (considering that Apple is involved) this company if successful would be granted, a virtual monopoly in the western world. on the very concept of using electronic means to measure temperature, gas, pressure, type, fluid level, this case might be one of the reasons why Apple isn’t offering blood pressure measurement with the Apple Watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hypertension
And in a tangential vein, Facebook is being sued by more than half the states for essentially NOT "looking after the children"
This will end in some sort of settlement/licensing obviously. They always do.
As a curious aside, did Apple file (and were they awarded) patents for their invention/implementation of this technology?
One of the most surprising things revealed in the courtroom is that pulse optometry on the Apple Watch does not work very well by Apple's own admission. Masimo is still willing to work with Apple to improve the feature to the consumer's benefit despite all the legal drama.
Anyway, if what he claimed about what was admitted in courtroom documents, and stated as fact in a publicly broadcast interview, is actually a lie, I've no doubt it will be called out as such with proof to the contrary in short order.
2) Making a statement on TV is not under oath, which is why — as an apt and currently relevant example — we all see a stark contrast in claims between the MAGA chuckleheads on the stand v on TV.
Different thing. Meta took positive action to harm children without regard for the consequences.