Masimo open to an Apple Watch settlement, if Apple would only call
Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claims the medical device company is open to a settlement discussion over the upcoming U.S. Apple Watch sales ban, but Apple allegedly hasn't made any moves to do so.
Apple Watch with blood oxygen sensing functions
In the face of a sales ban in the United States from an ITC patent infringement dispute that is due to start on Christmas Day, Apple has already taken steps to prepare for it. However, legal opponent Masimo may have hinted at a way out.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Massimo CEO Joe Kiani said the "short answer is yes" when asked if a settlement was a possibility between the two companies. He added that Masimo would certainly "work with them to improve their product" as well.
However, while Kiani didn't reveal a potential amount that would settle proceedings, he also claims Apple hasn't taken steps to even discuss a settlement. "They haven't called," said the CEO. "It takes two to tango."
A settlement would potentially draw to an end the ongoing legal battle between the two companies, as well as halt the inbound sales ban of newer Apple Watch models that infringe Masimo's patents. At this time, it seems that going down that route is not a possibility for Apple.
The ban will officially start on Christmas day, but Apple is ceasing online sales of the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and the Apple Watch Series 9 from December 21, and in Apple Stores from December 24.
For Apple, there is a small chance of a reprieve, as the White House can elect to veto the ban and stop it from happening. Kiani refers to Apple's preparation plans as a "stunt" to try and pressure the Biden Administration into pulling the ban.
Continued theft allegations
"These guys have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar," Kiani continued, speaking about Apple's alleged use of the company's patents for blood oxygen monitoring.
"This is not an accidental infringement -- This is a deliberate taking of our intellectual property," he added. "I am glad the world can now see we are the true innovators and creators of these technologies."
Kiani goes on to claim that Apple hired more than 20 engineers from the company, sometimes by doubling their salary, in order to have them work on similar technologies for use in the Apple Watch.
"Apple could be an example of how to do things right and do things well, and they didn't have to steal our people. We could have worked with them," Kiani asserted.
On the topic of the supposed attempt by Apple to thwart the ban with a software update, Kiani doubted it would work. "It shouldn't, because our patents are not about the software. They are about the hardware with the software."
Kiani added that the ITC import ban could've been avoided if the Apple Watch and its components were manufactured in the United States. He then pointed out that Masimo's technology is made within the country.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
"Apple could be an example of how to do things right and do things well, and they didn't have to steal our people. We could have worked with them," Kiani asserted.
Apple didn't "steal" people" as workers are free to work for whomever they please. Apple learned the hard way after getting smacked down for their "no poaching" deal with Google and others under Jobs.
The ITC "determined" that Apple violated 2 claims of 1 patent granted 2021, which was the year after Apple introduced the Apple Watch 6. Those claims should be invalidated and I definitely can see why Apple isn't going to settle, for now. But play the game they must.
From what I can sort of gather, it is a general patent applying to blood oxygen sensors being on the wrist. Which tbh is a joke of a patent. Happy for more details in the next article please.
Masimo is a very large company. Whining about how much more Apple Pay’s its former staff is tragically sad, as Masimo clearly weren’t paying them what they were worth.
Typical patent system idiocracy in this too. When Apple redesigns their sensor to put it back on the market they won’t be able to chamfer the edge (a really common industrial design technique) because that is a claim specified in isolation that was considered an infringed on design.
Don't think so. Civil trials do NOT need to be unanimous as in a criminal trial. So, Apple actually won that case. It's the ITC that still had a problem.
I'd also note that the original USITC ALJ (administrative law judge) only found enforceable violations as to the last 2 claims (24 and 30 of the 10,945,648 patent). The Commission effectively overruled that ALJ with regard to the first three.
Claim 22 of 10,0912,502
19. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure an oxygen saturation of a user, the user-worn device comprising:
AND...
EDIT: To change "independent claims" to "dependent claims"
28. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure an oxygen saturation of a user, the user-worn device comprising:
8. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a physiological parameter of a user, the user-worn device comprising:
AND...
12. The user-worn device of claim 8, wherein the physiological parameter comprises oxygen or oxygen saturation.
20. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a user's tissue, the user-worn device comprising:
AND...
24. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping.
20. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a user's tissue, the user-worn device comprising:
AND...
30. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion further comprises one or more chamfered edges.
I'm aware that there has been inaccurate reporting on this point.