Masimo open to an Apple Watch settlement, if Apple would only call

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    carnegie said:
    entropys said:
    All articles I have read fail to specify exactly what patents Apple is supposed to have infringed. More interested in the controversy I suppose.

    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.

    I'll post the verbiage of the 5 patent claims which the LEO and C&DO are based on. In order to infringe a patent claim, one must employ every element listed in that patent claim. Note that some of these claims are what are referred to as dependent claims. They include all of the elements of a previous numbered claim plus something additional. So, e.g., with the first claim I'll post - 22 of the 10,912,502 patent - there's only an enforceable violation because of the inclusion of the last item.

    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.
    This is not clear to me.

    The ITC (commission) found Apple was in violation of which patents, which claims of which patents?

    The ALJ (judge) found Apple was in violation of which patents, which claims of which patents?

    I've read that Apple is only in violation of the 648 patent, claim 24 and 30. This was a patent that was granted in 2021, after Apple shipped the Apple Watch Series 6.
    starof80watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 46
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,078member
    tht said:
    carnegie said:
    entropys said:
    All articles I have read fail to specify exactly what patents Apple is supposed to have infringed. More interested in the controversy I suppose.

    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.

    I'll post the verbiage of the 5 patent claims which the LEO and C&DO are based on. In order to infringe a patent claim, one must employ every element listed in that patent claim. Note that some of these claims are what are referred to as dependent claims. They include all of the elements of a previous numbered claim plus something additional. So, e.g., with the first claim I'll post - 22 of the 10,912,502 patent - there's only an enforceable violation because of the inclusion of the last item.

    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.
    This is not clear to me.

    The ITC (commission) found Apple was in violation of which patents, which claims of which patents?

    The ALJ (judge) found Apple was in violation of which patents, which claims of which patents?

    I've read that Apple is only in violation of the 648 patent, claim 24 and 30. This was a patent that was granted in 2021, after Apple shipped the Apple Watch Series 6.
    The administrative law judge (who is part of the USITC) initially found a 337 violation based on claims 24 and 30 of the '648 patent. That ALJ didn't find a violation based any of the other remaining claims (which spanned 5 different patents).

    Then the Commission (the C in USITC) affirmed the 337 violation based on those two claims. But it also effectively reversed the findings of no violation when it came to claims 22 and 28 of the '502 patent and claim 12 of the '648 patent.

    So the limited exclusion order and the cease and desist order are based on claims 22 and 28 of the '502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the '648 patent.

    That said, it doesn't matter when a patent was issued. What matters is the priority date and that (for the '648 patent) goes back much further.
    gatorguywilliamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerjasenj1Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 46
    Apple needs to pay up.  Apple Watch is a premium product and deserves the best technology for O2  measurement.  Only Masimo makes that.  Any software redesign Apple comes up with will not measure O2 accurately with people of color.   Thats unacceptable.  Give Masimo the few cents per unit they deserve Apple.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 24 of 46
    Or maybe Apple should just buy Masimo.  Masimo owns multiple names in audio like Marantz, Denon and Bowers Wilkins.  Apple would acquire not only some great medical products but some audio also.   
    starof809secondkox2Alex1N
  • Reply 25 of 46
    Apple needs to pay up.  Apple Watch is a premium product and deserves the best technology for O2  measurement.  Only Masimo makes that.  Any software redesign Apple comes up with will not measure O2 accurately with people of color.   Thats unacceptable.  Give Masimo the few cents per unit they deserve Apple.
    Hell no! Are you crazy? Bezillions of people make that. You can buy those gadgets for $30 on Amazon. That ship has sailed and sunk. Masimo is a patent troll and should be exposed as such.
    starof809secondkox2Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 46
    I call bullcrap on Masimo on this one. Apple had this feature since the series 6, if Masimo really cared about their patent, they would’ve stopped this a few years ago.
    9secondkox2watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 46
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    What if the method the sensor uses to take measurements is different?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 46
    It doesn’t matter if they are patent trolls or not. If they hold the patent and Apple copied it then they are in violation. They can pay, find a different way to get there or pull the features. My guess is they will pay at the end of the day and change it in the next version or they have the next version ready to go and will do an early launch. 
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguygrandact73FileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 46
    tht said:
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    They are a patent troll. It's not mutually exclusive to have products while also being a patent troll. It's the way the game is often played as this is the way the USA gov't wants it, so companies play the game. Some are aggressive, some are not. It ebbs and flows.

    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.
    Masimo doesn't just "have products." They are the industry leader in serious, hospital-grade pulse oximeter technology, which is why Apple decided to steal from Masimo. 
    muthuk_vanalingamgrandact73jasenj1Alex1N
  • Reply 30 of 46
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,088member
    There patents are in the process of being invalidating.   Apple should pay them $0.   Now and going forward 

    edited December 2023 lordjohnwhorfinwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 46

    rob53 said:
    “  He added that Masimo would certainly "work with them to improve their product" as well.” makes me wonder whether Apple actually used Masimo’s IP. Sounds like Masimo is trying to get code from Apple to see if they can fix their own code. Otherwise, Masimo is being rude telling Apple they are better than Apple. 
    Masimo IS better than Apple. Don't take my word for it, take the word of hospitals and medical professionals across the country that rely on Masimo medical grade pulse oximeters like the Radical 7 that costs over $2,000. None of them would ever rely on Apple Watch pulse oximeter readings for accuracy and there's a good reason why. 
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerAlex1N
  • Reply 32 of 46

    Apple probably plans to update their hardware then counter with their patents rather then enter a business relationship. This may be the end of Misamo’s smart watch ambitions if Apple sues it to death.
    Apple can't "update the hardware" in any existing Apple Watch model. I'd even venture to say that it's even too late to devise new pulse oximeter tech for the Apple Watch 10 due next Sept, for which development is probably finished by now. All they can do is issue a software update that would disable pulse oximeter tech in offending watches, but that's hardly a desirable solution. Truth is, Masimo now holds the upper hand over Apple until their patents expire, which I think happens in 2028. Moreover, Apple has no grounds on which to "sue Masimo to death" -- they've litigated this as far as they can take it. It's time to cut a deal, pay a reasonable licensing fee and--as Masimo has suggested could happen--improve the pulse oximeter tech in Apple Watches with Masimo's help. 
    edited December 2023 muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellerjasenj1Alex1N
  • Reply 33 of 46
    charlesn said:

    rob53 said:
    “  He added that Masimo would certainly "work with them to improve their product" as well.” makes me wonder whether Apple actually used Masimo’s IP. Sounds like Masimo is trying to get code from Apple to see if they can fix their own code. Otherwise, Masimo is being rude telling Apple they are better than Apple. 
    Masimo IS better than Apple. Don't take my word for it, take the word of hospitals and medical professionals across the country that rely on Masimo medical grade pulse oximeters like the Radical 7 that costs over $2,000. None of them would ever rely on Apple Watch pulse oximeter readings for accuracy and there's a good reason why. 
    Either it’s the same technology, and they’re ripping people off by selling a simple pulse oxymeter at the price of five Apple Watches for which it’s a side benefit; or it’s not the same tech and they have no claim. Either way, they’re scam artists.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 46

    charlesn said:

    Apple probably plans to update their hardware then counter with their patents rather then enter a business relationship. This may be the end of Misamo’s smart watch ambitions if Apple sues it to death.
    Apple can't "update the hardware" in any existing Apple Watch model. I'd even venture to say that it's even too late to devise new pulse oximeter tech for the Apple Watch 10 due next Sept, for which development is probably finished by now. All they can do is issue a software update that would disable pulse oximeter tech in offending watches, but that's hardly a desirable solution. Truth is, Masimo now holds the upper hand over Apple until their patents expire, which I think happens in 2028. Moreover, Apple has no grounds on which to "sue Masimo to death" -- they've litigated this as far as they can take it. It's time to cut a deal, pay a reasonable licensing fee and--as Masimo has suggested could happen--improve the pulse oximeter tech in Apple Watches with Masimo's help. 
    charlesn said:

    Apple probably plans to update their hardware then counter with their patents rather then enter a business relationship. This may be the end of Misamo’s smart watch ambitions if Apple sues it to death.
    Apple can't "update the hardware" in any existing Apple Watch model. I'd even venture to say that it's even too late to devise new pulse oximeter tech for the Apple Watch 10 due next Sept, for which development is probably finished by now. All they can do is issue a software update that would disable pulse oximeter tech in offending watches, but that's hardly a desirable solution. Truth is, Masimo now holds the upper hand over Apple until their patents expire, which I think happens in 2028. Moreover, Apple has no grounds on which to "sue Masimo to death" -- they've litigated this as far as they can take it. It's time to cut a deal, pay a reasonable licensing fee and--as Masimo has suggested could happen--improve the pulse oximeter tech in Apple Watches with Masimo's help. 
    Don’t make me laugh. Apple’s engineers don’t need the help of this two bit outfit. They should litigate Masimo into oblivion.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 46
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    Thank you for listing that Carnegie
    FileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 46
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    charlesn said:
    tht said:
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    They are a patent troll. It's not mutually exclusive to have products while also being a patent troll. It's the way the game is often played as this is the way the USA gov't wants it, so companies play the game. Some are aggressive, some are not. It ebbs and flows.

    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.
    Masimo doesn't just "have products." They are the industry leader in serious, hospital-grade pulse oximeter technology, which is why Apple decided to steal from Masimo. 
    They are definitely being patent trolls. That's the name of the patent game in modern times. Apple did it with Samsung, and probably MS in the 90s, though the code to QuickTime may have been stolen with the almost suit (?) in the 90s.

    Just read the patent claims posted by carnegie. These patents are written to be as vague as possible and to not reveal anything about actual designs. That's the way the system has devolved to. There is no engineering value whatsoever to these patents as they don't provide any details. There is nothing to steal from these patents due to this. Their only value is to use them as political tools to extract money and to protect a company's products even when they aren't even related. That is, the patents are designed for patent trolling.

    Just once, I actually would like to see a patent with actual dimensioned drawings of an actual product with engineering details in these patent suits. Every single one of the patents in these suits all would get an F in any rudimentary English language class as they written in a lingua franca designed to obfuscate, not be clear. Even the SEP are crappily written. I'm still guffawing at Apple violating '648 claim 30.
    FileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 46
    longfang said:
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    What if the method the sensor uses to take measurements is different?
    If that were so, there would be no case. No one a patent measuring something. You can patent your way of getting there, . That’s why apple is forgoing the 5g modem race and has been aiming at 6g. All the performant ways of getting 5g done are patented. 

    Apple would have to do one of three things here:

    1) prove they didn’t violate the patents. It appears they failed to do this. 

    2) invent a different method of accomplishing the same goal. 

    3) license the patented tech from Masimo. 

    Or, you know, just buy the company. That’s probably Maximo’s goal here. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 46
    tht said:
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    They are a patent troll. It's not mutually exclusive to have products while also being a patent troll. It's the way the game is often played as this is the way the USA gov't wants it, so companies play the game. Some are aggressive, some are not. It ebbs and flows.

    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.
    You must be OK when people squat on other people’s land.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    mike1 said:
    There were reported talks within Apple to buy Masimo but they decided not to. 

    Prior to the Trade Commission ruling, Apple was one vote away in the jury trial from being found not guilty of patent infringement (5-1).  This resulted in a mistrial.  Apparently during the trial, Apple paraded its development team to the stand and each declared under oath how the Apple watch component was developed NOT using Masimo technology.  

    Btw Masimo was originally claiming $3B in damages at the trial but the judge threw out a bunch and it was reduced to $1.xB. 

    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.
    Nope: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/apple-masimo-judge-declares-mistrial-in-trade-secret-theft-fight-1.1914617
  • Reply 40 of 46
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    tht said:
    macbootx said:
    Looking at the line of sensor related products they sell, Masimo certainly doesn’t appear to be a patent troll. Hopefully Apple will negotiate a fair deal. 
    They are a patent troll. It's not mutually exclusive to have products while also being a patent troll. It's the way the game is often played as this is the way the USA gov't wants it, so companies play the game. Some are aggressive, some are not. It ebbs and flows.

    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.
    You must be OK when people squat on other people’s land.
    Obviously not ok with that. Just want people to do the right thing so that everyone benefits.

    It's not hard to say that these aren't actually patents as we envision patents to be, where an actual design or product is protected. The patents are written in vague language for the express purpose of suing other entities that have anything resembling a blood oxygen device. There isn't any actual design or product in these patents.

    The language in the claims are like a "a worn device with at least 2 LEDs". To me, that should be an automatic invalidation for being too vague as they are trying to patent an idea and not an actual product.  There's not a product there. No actual implementation of a blood oxygen measurement device. If it was, they would say precisely how many lights, what wavelengths, what power levels, what materials, and what calibrations they need to make it work.

    These patents hold no engineering value, and if a company wanted to make a blood oxygen sensing device, they would have to develop the product from scratch. How could something be stolen, if so?
    FileMakerFellerAlex1Nwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.