Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everything that exists was inevitable and after invention obvious to everybody else.
There is much to debate about the merits of the law, but for an import ban the law requires a patent holder to demonstrate a "significant" or "substantial" domestic industry related to the patented invention.
This is not the same as patent infringement. An infringer cannot be banned from importing a patented good if the patent owner does not make, use or sell it's own patented good.
There is no conspiracy. As has already been noted, it took this long for the Federal Circuit to hear oral arguments. Briefs were already filed. Now we wait for the court to decide.
Most of us who depend on the feature don’t track instantaneous readings; we track trends.
I want to upgrade to a new Ultra when it comes out. I wonder if I could just buy one in Japan when I'm there. Are the feature like this tied to watch model or where your account is or some combination of both? But even if it worked at the device level, then I wonder if there are any features that would be disabled if it isn't from the US?
It’s an import ban that just impacts the US, so any watch purchased outside of the US should have the feature enabled.
No idea if there are other differences between the models though.
If Apple made the watch in the US an import ban wouldn't have worked, that's on them too.
But whatever, if I wanted a new one I'd just smuggle it in myself.
Yes I would.
This isn't about Apple. This is about a patent that should NEVER have been issued. Pulse oximetry was invented half a century ago, ALL patents on it should have expired, and there should NOT have been any new ones issued. "Pulse oximetry but in a watch form factor" is NOT an invention. "Pulse oximetry but hooked up to a data recorder" is NOT an invention. The ONLY actual invention here is pulse oximetry itself, and the patents on that are LONG expired.
Overly broad patients should not be granted in the first place. Masimo should be willing to license the patient under FAIR terms, if they are not, then Apple's course of action is the prudent course of action.
It will work in the USA. However, AppleCare will not cover repairs outside of Japan. I know I asked many people at the USA Apple store when I was there in October 2024, when I bought my M4 13-inch iPad. That's why I bought the Apple Watch Hermès when I returned to Japan.
For now. And remember the centre of Apple's research is supposedly in Ireland.
Yup and Apple knows this, so until then they will just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.
That is disappointing. Then again I've never had to have any of my Apple Watch's repaired. I guess I'll have to think on this one!
I just ordered an open-box / otherwise-new Series 9 45mm on eBay that was imported before the SpO2 sensor ban. I got tired of waiting for Apple to just pay licensing fees to Masimo like they should have in October 2023.
This is not a patent troll case. This is a clear case of head-hunting competitor’s employees who then come to work using the same patented techniques they used at their former employer.
Surely, Apple could come to the table and negotiate with Masimo. Offer them $1 per Apple Watch and Masimo would call it a victory and Apple consumers would be thrilled too.
I could not even get my Series 7 battery replaced out-of-warranty for the usual $99 because I had to agree to the refurbished watch they would send me having a disabled SpO2 feature (because they are refurbished in China).
Apple’s entire handling of this has been awful. They are evolving into the “evil empire” or perhaps they are already there.
What Apple needs to do:
1. Go back in time and delete the anti-steering rules from their App Store terms and conditions like 5 years ago. But barring time travel, stop trying so hard to fight it today.
2. Lower App Store commissions to a reasonable 10% and just make free apps from big players with external subscriptions (e.g.: Netflix and Spotify) pay a reasonable annual flat fee. Instead of using 30% to have the money-making apps subsidize the distribution of the freeloaders.
3. Open up the ability to control third-party computer displays from the Mac keyboard so you don’t have to spend an arm and a leg to get an Apple monitor with this simple integration. This is the stupidest lock-in I have seen since Apple’s displays cannot be a big revenue driver anyway.
4. Treat other company’s IP (especially patents) with the same respect that they want their IP treated with — so long as those other companies are NOT patent trolls (Masimo is not a troll).
This is not a patent troll case. This is a clear case of head-hunting competitor’s employees who then come to work using the same patented techniques they used at their former employer.
Surely, Apple could come to the table and negotiate with Masimo. Offer them $1 per Apple Watch and Masimo would call it a victory and Apple consumers would be thrilled too.
I could not even get my Series 7 battery replaced out-of-warranty for the usual $99 because I had to agree to the refurbished watch they would send me having a disabled SpO2 feature (because they are refurbished in China).
Apple’s entire handling of this has been awful. They are evolving into the “evil empire” or perhaps they are already there.
What Apple needs to do:
1. Go back in time and delete the anti-steering rules from their App Store terms and conditions like 5 years ago. But barring time travel, stop trying so hard to fight it today.
2. Lower App Store commissions to a reasonable 10% and just make free apps from big players with external subscriptions (e.g.: Netflix and Spotify) pay a reasonable annual flat fee. Instead of using 30% to have the money-making apps subsidize the distribution of the freeloaders.
3. Open up the ability to control third-party computer displays from the Mac keyboard so you don’t have to spend an arm and a leg to get an Apple monitor with this simple integration. This is the stupidest lock-in I have seen since Apple’s displays cannot be a big revenue driver anyway.
4. Treat other company’s IP (especially patents) with the same respect that they want their IP treated with — so long as those other companies are NOT patent trolls (Masimo is not a troll).
When we speak of patent trolls we are usually thinking about non-practicing entities, which are companies that hold patents for the sole purpose of enforcing them. So in that respect, Masimo is not a troll because they are producing products that they hold patents for.
The issue here is that the Masimo patents in question are nearly 20 years old and did not explicitly anticipate the Apple Watch. It is true that in legal terms Masimo has wrangled those patents after the fact to cover aspects of the Apple Watch (through a series of continuing patent applications dating back to 2008 or so), but it is harder to argue that Apple directly copied Masimo's patents as opposed to improving well-known technology. Furthermore, many of Masimo's patents have been invalidated in court. There are a sliver of them left that the ITC found valid and infringed by Apple, but we will see if the Federal Circuit agrees. The ITC rules by committee in ways that may not hold up in court.
The age of the patent only really matters when it expires. Apple asserted their 20-year-old patent on identifying phone numbers, emails and addresses (or other patterns) in otherwise unstructured text and making the recognized patterns into actionable buttons/links against Google & Samsung circa 2010. That patent seemed pretty obvious in 2010 but circa 1990 before web links were really a thing, Apple used it to let you add contacts and send emails on a Mac.
I am just saying if Apple’s legal team wants to assert their patents that way then they don’t get sympathy when they cry foul because it happens to them. I’d wager Apple could have bought a perpetual license to Masimo’s patents for less than they spent on their lawyers and lost in profit from people like me who won’t upgrade or upgrade to a resale Apple Watch. Most importantly, Apple is NOT doing what is right for their consumers but rather their investors. Apple should negotiate a settlement for the sake of their customers.
Masimo was not going to settle for just a license. They wanted to participate in the development of the Apple Watch.
As far as the age of the patents, the claims in the Masimo patent are nothing like the Apple patents you mentioned. In any event, there is nothing wrong with asserting your own patents and challenging everyone else's.
I appreciate you being this candid.
Apple (and those defending Apple) should expect to get situationally roasted, however, if that's going to be the playbook.
Participate in the development?!?! Masimo has a history of licensing their patents for royalties (very similar to IBM). Where are you getting this information from? Apple never even sat down to negotiate with them according to all reports I read. Plus Masimo has a new CEO and Apple still has not been open to negotiations since that happened.
I have gone through several of Apple’s patents and most people would consider their patent claims pretty fragile and obvious as well. But when reading patent claims you have to consider when the patent was created and compare that to what “someone skilled in the art” at that time would be innovating or just recording obvious methodology. In retrospect, most patent claims seem obvious but then you gotta ask why it was not implemented sooner by somebody else. “prior art” is often key to that argument.
I am not saying Apple’s patents should be invalidated. Just that people toss around the notion of “obvious” whenever a patent is inconvenient for them.
So maybe you meant something different by the Masimo claims being “nothing like” the Apple patents I mentioned, but I would hope not since they are completely different inventions.
The Apple patent I mentioned would seem completely obvious to anybody who has ever done any software development using regular expressions. The only leap is creating a button/link once the pattern in the unstructured text is recognized. Most people would argue that is obvious today. But the patent was pre-web-browsers, so then maybe not so obvious in that era.
Last edited:
The former CEO made public statements to the effect of "the only way Masimo would agree to a license is if Masimo was involved in developing SPO2 tech with Apple." He was suggesting that Apple wasn't doing SP02 sensing well enough for Masimo to put their stamp of approval on it. He was also upset about Apple "poaching" engineers.
Now he's gone, but the litigation has been trending in Apple's direction. Many of Masimo's patents have been invalidated or rendered not infringed. Apple is making a business decision not to settle. It's just blood oxygen sensing, not a core feature of the Apple Watch, and only restricted in the U.S. I suppose they can live without it until they come up with something else or get the appeals court to drop the import ban, or just wait for the patents to expire in 2028.
As far as your obviousness arguments, I don't know the details of those other patents but as a patent attorney I can say that obviousness in patent law is very complex, nuanced, and fact-specific. You are comparing two different patents and trying to make a common argument about "inconvenience." As with all litigation, it comes down to how strong the case is and whether there is a will to fight or settle. I'm not taking sides in this case, but if Apple doesn't want to settle, then they can take the risk. In the grand scheme of things, this litigation with Masimo is not going to make or break the company, so let's see how it plays out.