Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,107
40,133


The latest legal dispute between Apple and pulse oximetry company Masimo today ended in a mistrial, reports Bloomberg. The jury overseeing the case was not able to come to a final decision in its deliberations, causing U.S. district judge James Selna to declare a mistrial.

apple-watch-ultra-purple.jpg

Six jurors wanted to decide in favor of Apple, but one juror held strong for Masimo, leading to an impasse. Earlier this afternoon, the jurors sent the judge a note asking what to do because the juror voting in favor of Masimo would not change her position.

The judge initially planned to send the jurors home for the night with deliberations to continue on Tuesday, but after they insisted they would not be able to come to a consensus, he opted to call it.

Apple and Masimo have been in court over the last few weeks to determine whether Apple illegally poached Masimo employees and stole trade secrets when developing the Apple Watch. Masimo was seeking over $1.8 billion in damages and co-ownership of five Apple pulse oximetry patents that Masimo said used its technology.

Apple in July 2013 hired Chief Medical Officer Michael O'Reilly and then in 2014, it hired Cercacor Chief Technical Officer Marcelo Lamego (Cercacor is a Masimo spinoff company). Masimo claims that the two former employees inappropriately shared Masimo's intellectual property when they developed the Apple Watch, which Apple denies.

During the trial, Masimo attempted to demonstrate that Apple Watch development was floundering prior to the hiring of the two Masimo employees, pointing to a 2013 email where now-retired Apple executive Bob Mansfield called the Apple Watch "a mess" and said the sensor would "fail" on its "current path."

Apple maintained that no Masimo IP was used in its work on the Apple Watch, and further, that what Masimo claims are "trade secrets" are ideas "long known and used by multiple companies." Apple said that Masimo targeted it because Masimo saw the success of Apple Watch and wanted to make its own smart watch. Masimo did indeed come out with an Apple Watch-like wearable in late 2022 after decades of focus on large medical devices for healthcare.

In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that it plans to ask the court to dismiss the trade secret allegations. For context, five of Masimo's claims against Apple were thrown out during the trial, reducing Masimo's self-calculated award.
"We thank the jury for their careful consideration in this case. We deeply respect intellectual property and innovation and do not take or use confidential information from other companies. We are pleased that the court correctly rejected half of the plaintiffs’ trade secret allegations, and will now ask the court to dismiss the remaining claims."

Masimo said that it plans to continue pursuing the trade theft case.
"While we are disappointed that the jury was unable to reach a verdict, we intend to retry the case and continue to pursue legal redress against Apple. As we begin that process, the United States Trade Commission is scheduled in the coming months to decide whether to ban the importation of certain models of the Apple Watch, following a ruling last year by an Administrative Law Judge that Apple infringed one of Masimo’s patents for pulse oximetry."
Masimo previously sued Apple for patent infringement, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ended up invalidating all but two of the patents. The United States International Trade Commission in January said that Apple had infringed on a Masimo patent, a case that is still ongoing.

Article Link: Apple's Trade Secret Battle With Masimo Over Pulse Oximetry Technology Ends in Mistrial
 
Last edited:


The latest legal dispute between Apple and pulse oximetry company Masimo today ended in a mistrial, reports Bloomberg. The jury overseeing the case was not able to come to a final decision in its deliberations, causing U.S. district judge James Selna to declare a mistrial.

apple-watch-ultra-purple.jpg

Six jurors wanted to decide in favor of Apple, but one juror held strong for Masimo, leading to an impasse. Earlier this afternoon, the jurors sent the judge a note asking what to do because the juror voting in favor of Masimo would not change her position.

The judge initially planned to send the jurors home for the night with deliberations to continue on Tuesday, but after they insisted they would not be able to come to a consensus, he opted to call it.

Apple and Masimo have been in court over the last few weeks to determine whether Apple illegally poached Masimo employees and stole trade secrets when developing the Apple Watch. Masimo was seeking over $1.8 billion in damages and co-ownership of five Apple pulse oximetry patents that Masimo said used its technology.

Apple in July 2013 hired Chief Medical Officer Michael O'Reilly and then in 2014, it hired Cercacor Chief Technical Officer Marcelo Lamego (Cercacor is a Masimo spinoff company). Masimo claims that the two former employees inappropriately shared Masimo's intellectual property when they developed the Apple Watch, which Apple denies.

During the trial, Masimo attempted to demonstrate that Apple Watch development was floundering prior to the hiring of the two Masimo employees, pointing to a 2013 email where now-retired Apple executive Bob Mansfield called the Apple Watch "a mess" and said the sensor would "fail" on its "current path."

Apple maintained that there was no Masimo IP was used in its work on the Apple Watch, and further, that what Masimo claims are "trade secrets" are ideas "long known and used by multiple companies." Apple said that Masimo targeted it because Masimo saw the success of Apple Watch and wanted to make its own smart watch. Masimo did indeed come out with an Apple Watch-like wearable in late 2022 after decades of focus on large medical devices for healthcare.

In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that it plans to ask the court to dismiss the trade secret allegations. For context, five of Masimo's claims against Apple were thrown out during the trial, reducing Masimo's self-calculated award.

Masimo said that it plans to continue pursuing the trade theft case.Masimo previously sued Apple for patent infringement, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ended up invalidating all but two of the patents. The United States International Trade Commission in January said that Apple had infringed on a Masimo patent, a case that is still ongoing.

Article Link: Apple's Trade Secret Battle With Masimo Over Pulse Oximetry Technology Ends in Mistrial
I'm curious, why didn't the judge order a majority verdict?
Looks to me like a ringer in there 😏
 
I'm curious, why didn't the judge order a majority verdict?
Looks to me like a ringer in there 😏

Because US jury trial is stupid. It dictates that a jury consensus must be 100% unanimous, with not a single holdout.

That's how many so many criminals (and crimes) don't get prosecuted, due to hung jury.

I would prefer (a justice system revamp to) a larger jury pool... like say 15 jurors, which gives you a statistically more "fair" and balanced sampling rate. And then you simply need come up with a two-thirds consensus (supermajority) to make a decision. Say 10 out of 15 vote "innocent" .... and thus that majority consensus becomes the binding verdict.
 
"We thank the jury for their careful consideration in this case. We deeply respect intellectual property and innovation and do not take or use confidential information from other companies...."

Rofl. This from a company built on theft....
 
Six jurors wanted to decide in favor of Apple, but one juror held strong for Masimo, leading to an impasse.
Sounds like one juror might have some Apple stock... doesn't make sense when it's swayed that much.

Edit: My mistake; I misread it. Same idea but opposite. Seems like one juror hates Apple. But hey, jurors don’t have to be rational…
Why is that the only possible conclusion you can draw? Why couldn't the 5 jurors who decided in favor of Apple be the ones who have some Apple stock?
 
Why is that the only possible conclusion you can draw? Why couldn't the 5 jurors who decided in favor of Apple be the ones who have some Apple stock?
Maybe jury selection questions? The article does seem to insinuate that the single juror was pretty adamant and unable to look at the evidence reasonably. For the sake of this thread, we should probably call her Karen.
 
Because US jury trial is stupid. It dictates that a jury consensus must be 100% unanimous, with not a single holdout.

That's how many so many criminals (and crimes) don't get prosecuted, due to hung jury.

I would prefer (a justice system revamp to) a larger jury pool... like say 15 jurors, which gives you a statistically more "fair" and balanced sampling rate. And then you simply need come up with a two-thirds consensus (supermajority) to make a decision. Say 10 out of 15 vote "innocent" .... and thus that majority consensus becomes the binding verdict.
This is not a criminal case, lot of states go with majority jury for civil cases. The federal cases mandate a unanimous verdict, this was a federal case, basically all or nothing Civil or criminal.
 
Let me tell you guys the truth about all of this. I have no idea who was right. With all respect to MacRumors, reading a few stories on the internet is not enough to form a valid opinion.
I have to admit, I didn’t know who they were. But a cursory look at their website is all about "how awesome we are, just ask us". Plus a subscription to use the data collected on their Apple Watch Masimo W1
 
We don’t have a jury and I cannot „judge“ which system is better but I always wonder how these things work out anyway like isn’t the point of a jury member to have an opinion that they believe in? Seems to be like „we just keep trying until the jury members get tired of staying late so eventually one of them is going to flip their vote even though they don’t really believe in that decision, just to get home“
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.