Apple Watch Sales Ban Reinstated in U.S. Effective Tomorrow

[5H3PH3RD]

Pretty much.... I wish they would have just partnered with Masimo in the first place rather than trying to poach employees who thought they could "side-step" the Masimo patents. Masimo is pretty innovative in the field of non-invasive health sensors. Had Apple partnered with or acquired Masimo then I think the Apple Watch could be an even better product today.

It does not sound like Masimo is trying to "take down" Apple like Epic Games was doing -- they simply want to be paid for their inventions. Further, Masimo is no patent troll. Masimo does not compete with Apple since they sell to healthcare providers (B2B), not consumers (B2C) -- so I would think a partnership would work here for Apple -- and certainly Apple can afford to pay a partner for exclusive rights to their patents in consumer products.

They entered the consumer watch market.

Not a single comment here has referenced just how much money Masimo has pissed away already fighting this or mention that institutional investors are up in arms against the CEO on how much the share price has dropped due to this.

I’m predicting the outcome that Apple will ruin them financially beyond return, institutional investors will oust the CEO and make a decent deal with Apple or Apple will conduct a hostile takeover even through a proxy if not directly and take it all for penny’s on the dollar.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Not a single comment here has referenced just how much money Masimo has pissed away already fighting this or mention that institutional investors are up in arms against the CEO on how much the share price has dropped due to this.

I've mentioned it I even linked to the pdf of the Deck that Politan Capital used to inform investors before the proxy fight. But I tend to agree with your analysis.

 

[5H3PH3RD]

I've mentioned it I even linked to the pdf of the Deck that Politan Capital used to inform investors before the proxy fight. But I tend to agree with your analysis.

Sorry if I missed it.

 

[TundraKing]

This has really damaged Apples momentum in wearables and has been a PR fiasco. Mr. Cook really looks like he is flailing and has lost control of the situation.

They don't have much time to get things back on track. And no Mr. Cook... a crippled wearable is not an option if Apple wants to be a leader. Amazing that they have moved forward with this plan to cripple a major product of theirs.

There are MANY more health parameters/measures that will be incorporated in wearables in the future and Apple either is in the game or they are not.

Ball is in your court Apple.

 

[I7guy]

This has really damaged Apples momentum in wearables and has been a PR fiasco. Mr. Cook really looks like he is flailing and has lost control of the situation.

I don’t think it has. Never bet against apple; they always seem to come out ahead.

They don't have much time to get things back on track. And no Mr. Cook... a crippled wearable is not an option if Apple wants to be a leader. Amazing that they have moved forward with this plan to cripple a major product of theirs.

There are MANY more health parameters/measures that will be incorporated in wearables in the future and Apple either is in the game or they are not.

Ball is in your court Apple.

Well I agree this definitely has to be fixed but it’s not as dire, imo, as you believe…although some outlets will be like “the sky is falling”.

 

[jz0309]

Having now done more reading and research...

The Patents in dispute expire in 2028.

Apple could bypass the ITC ruling if they were to manufacture the watch in the USA.

There is so much underneath this case. It's amazing the Press has done nothing with it.

help me understand, as I have not done a whole lot of reading on this
patent usually are good for 20 years, and if you state they expire in 2028 would mean they were issued in 2008. But then I've read in other comments that the patents were not granted until after S6 release, so 2019?
Something is odd indeed

 

[jlc1978]

The hardware on all current Watches violates the patent. There are only certain ways to measure SpO2 and Apple chose to design hardware exactly the way the patent

If the hardware does not function then it can be argued no patent is violated since no functionality exists.

 

[dontwalkhand]

Looks like Apple either needs to disable the Blood Oxygen sensor or pay Masimo for their patent.

If it’s really missing 90% or something events, just disable the damn thing.

 

[BC2009]

Masimo didn't file the two patents in question until after Apple released the S6/U1.

So.... this got me to research this a bit more. US Patent 6,771,994 was one of the patents involved here and it dates back to 2003, but this is one that Apple successfully got a claim invalidated on (Claim 15).

The ITC References 5 US patents:
- US Patent 10,912,501 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,912,502 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,945,648 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,687,745 -- priority date March 31, 2020
- US Patent 7,761,127 -- priority date March 1, 2006

The Apple Watch Series 6 was announced on September 15, 2020 and released on September 18, 2020 so I am not sure why the ITC even cares about the first 3 patents UNLESS the pulse oximetry hardware in the Series 6 differs from that used in later Apple Watch models. If there is no difference then the Series 6 would be "prior art" to the first 3 patents listed there.

Oddly, the opening paragraph to the ITC ruling only references the 502 and 648 patent -- and neither of those should apply. The other 3 patents are mentioned later on.

The last 2 patents are the only 2 that should be relevant since they pre-date the Series 6 and would seem far more relevant. The ITC says the Apple Watch infringes claim 9 and 27 of the '745 patent and claim 9 of the '127 patent. I am baffled why the 502 patent and 648 patent even matter.

 

[goonie4life9]

You don't know any of that for certain. Nor do I. All I know is that Masimo's own investors and board have been concerned, and the CEO is in hot water with his own board and investors. Masimo has spent $100 million on this litigation. After everything I've read, the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that the CEO hasn't been negotiating in good faith; despite what he said to a reporter on a business news program.

Yowza, that’s quite the red herring! You don’t know any of that for certain. All we do know is Masimo initiated the attempt to collaborate. That is acting in good faith. Apple’s refusal to even reply is acting in bad faith.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

help me understand, as I have not done a whole lot of reading on this
patent usually are good for 20 years, and if you state they expire in 2028 would mean they were issued in 2008. But then I've read in other comments that the patents were not granted until after S6 release, so 2019?
Something is odd indeed

I don't know enough of the specifics of patent law. I read that too about filing something related to the patents after the release of S6.

The other thing, and again, I'm not an attorney, but it was important that they showed use of the patents (I thought any patent you had was enforceable, using it or not), and the watches they've put into the market didn't exist until late 2023.

As I say, I have no idea why some major newspaper has done a deep dive on any of this. When you start to read the details, and the fights that are going on inside of Masimo...it reads like a Netflix Mini Series waiting to happen.

 

[Born Again]

no, this case with the ITC ban is for new/future sales, it has no impact on watches that have been sold in the past.
As of now, there is no legal requirement for Apple to disable this feature. if they'd choose to do so on their own, yes, lawsuits will be rolling in

So some users will have what others don’t? Seems odd.

I don't understand why people think Apple is unwilling to pay for patent use. Just like every big tech company, they do it all the time. The only time you hear about it is when the two parties can't come to some agreement.

This is just rumors, but since this is MacRumors I guess that is ok, But I've heard that Masimo is asking for $100 a watch, that is crazy, obviously. But I think the bigger issue is the other rumor, that Masimo is not interested in a licensing deal. What they really want is a supplier / contributor deal. Kiani said they want to "work with them to improve there product". He did not say, we are willing to license the tech.

Additionally, the claim that no one at Apple has spoken to anyone at Masimo in years is simply too absurd to be believed. Kiani said "he" has not talked to them in years. The idea that no one at Apple has offered them some insulting low deal, like six months of AppleTV+ and a fifty dollar store gift card or whatever the equivalent is in patent licensing is simply not possible. Kiani said what he wants is an apology and an honest dialogue, again no mention of a licensing deal.

It is also worth mentioning that Masimo's case has continued to get weaker at nearly every stage. There claims about employee poaching (as if hiring an engineer who worked for another company is somehow illegal) didn't make it anywhere and then the majority of there patents were invalidated. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, they have two patents in question that have not been invalidated, yet. It is safe to say that Apple have a fair amount of experience in protecting and attacking patents, someone at Apple must feel pretty good that the remaining patents are not as strong as Kiani and Masimo's team seems to think.

This is an interesting take but a hot take at best.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Yowza, that’s quite the red herring! You don’t know any of that for certain. All we do know is Masimo initiated the attempt to collaborate. That is acting in good faith. Apple’s refusal to even reply is acting in bad faith.

NO...we don't know that. And I've read most of the court filings now. You're simply saying something because the CEO of Masimo said something like that one time. This case is way more complex than reading a few comments on MacRumors and thinking you know the details.

 

[canadianreader]

This assumes, of course, that Masimo is being reasonable in its ask. The device my doctor uses can be bought on Amazon for $12. The rumor I heard was that Masimo is asking $100/watch.

It's their tech they're free to price it anyway they want.

 

[jz0309]

So some users will have what others don’t? Seems odd.

we will know tomorrow when the ban is in effect ...

 

[Blackstick]

I'll just take my $150 refund for the lack of O2 sensing and be on my way

 

[onenorth]

I don't know enough of the specifics of patent law. I read that too about filing something related to the patents after the release of S6.

The other thing, and again, I'm not an attorney, but it was important that they showed use of the patents (I thought any patent you had was enforceable, using it or not), and the watches they've put into the market didn't exist until late 2023.

As I say, I have no idea why some major newspaper has done a deep dive on any of this. When you start to read the details, and the fights that are going on inside of Masimo...it reads like a Netflix Mini Series waiting to happen.

The patents have priority to 2008 but they were not granted until after 2020. This is called continuation practice where a patent application is filed over and over again with different claims. The earlier patents did not cover the Apple Watch so Masimo refiled with different claims to cover the watch. But in the end all of these patents will expire around 2028-2029.

 

[5H3PH3RD]

Yowza, that’s quite the red herring! You don’t know any of that for certain. All we do know is Masimo initiated the attempt to collaborate. That is acting in good faith. Apple’s refusal to even reply is acting in bad faith.

Don’t know which part? https://mms.businesswire.com/media/...K*MTcwMzYxNTY0Ni4xLjAuMTcwMzYxNTY0Ni42MC4wLjA

 

[Naraxus]

This is more of a case of a case of Apple stealing IP and not paying for it.

This is what Apple's done their entire existence. They steal/infringe on other's patents, drag out licensing negotiations (read: make extremely lowball "offers") and then when rightfully sued they play victim and cry to all and sundry.

 

[jz0309]

Masimo said it previously released a study showing that the Apple Watch's blood oxygen sensing feature "missed over 90% of potentially life-threatening events," while touting the effectiveness of its own Masimo W1 health watch.

Apple's footnote: Blood Oxygen app is for wellness purposes only and not for medical use

So, Masimo's "study" folks didn't read Apple's disclaimer - wtf?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Don’t know which part? https://mms.businesswire.com/media/...K*MTcwMzYxNTY0Ni4xLjAuMTcwMzYxNTY0Ni42MC4wLjA

I'm not sure what you're asking. I was responding to the idea that the CEO of Masimo has been more than willing to negotiate in good faith. I don't think we have any reason to conclude that. And I'm not sure why you linked to that document (which I linked to earlier in the thread).

 

[5H3PH3RD]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I was responding to the idea that the CEO of Masimo has been more than willing to negotiate in good faith. I don't think we have any reason to conclude that. And I'm not sure why you linked to that document (which I linked to earlier in the thread).

I wasn’t replying to you.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I wasn’t replying to you.

Oops. Sorry

 

[onenorth]

So.... this got me to research this a bit more. US Patent 6,771,994 was one of the patents involved here and it dates back to 2003, but this is one that Apple successfully got a claim invalidated on (Claim 15).

The ITC References 5 US patents:
- US Patent 10,912,501 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,912,502 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,945,648 -- priority date September 24, 2020
- US Patent 10,687,745 -- priority date March 31, 2020
- US Patent 7,761,127 -- priority date March 1, 2006

The Apple Watch Series 6 was announced on September 15, 2020 and released on September 18, 2020 so I am not sure why the ITC even cares about the first 3 patents UNLESS the pulse oximetry hardware in the Series 6 differs from that used in later Apple Watch models. If there is no difference then the Series 6 would be "prior art" to the first 3 patents listed there.

Oddly, the opening paragraph to the ITC ruling only references the 502 and 648 patent -- and neither of those should apply. The other 3 patents are mentioned later on.

The last 2 patents are the only 2 that should be relevant since they pre-date the Series 6 and would seem far more relevant. The ITC says the Apple Watch infringes claim 9 and 27 of the '745 patent and claim 9 of the '127 patent. I am baffled why the 502 patent and 648 patent even matter.

Those are the filing dates, not the priority dates. If you look at the related applications section in those patents you will see a long list of other patent applications claiming priority back to 2008. Whether or not these patents are entitled to the earlier priority date is a legal question but it has not been challenged by Apple so we can assume those dates are good. In any event, the 502 and 648 patents were not granted until 2021.

 

[DMG35]

Does Masimo just get to say any number they feel like? Or do we have lots of other factors that need to be looked at 🤔

Oh I have no idea. I'm sure they have lawyers that determine what the patent is worth and it's probably based somewhat on Apple's sales of the Apple Watch with the blood oxygen sensor. Outside of that I have no idea.