Yup! It's actually really quite a tasty way to cook chicken.
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.
Masimo CEO on Looming Apple Watch Ban: 'These Guys Have Been Caught With Their Hands in the Cookie Jar'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Federal Circuit will have the final say, if Apple appeals.
The ITC commissioners make a determination after the administrative judges issue a decision. It is a different process than in the courts and Apple must have believed that the ITC commissioners could be swayed in their favor given that many of the Masimo patent claims were invalidated and the ones that survived are arguably obvious over the prior art.
I know a lot of people think Apple is the bad guy but this is capitalism. Masimo is playing hardball too. Win some, lose some. It's just a matter of deciding when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
...and the Apple Watch, which has already dramatically slowed down in terms of innovation, will become another irrelevant product in Apple's pipeline...
Irrelevant product? Hardly likely, the Apple Watch is saving lives daily, just look at the news stories.
My Apple Watch saved mine!
Apple should “het, het, no, he beat me, straight up; pay that man, pay that man his money!” - Teddy KGB Movie - Rounders
Apple needs to pay up!!!
Apple needs to pay up!!!
Apple has had plenty of time to end the story and they have let it drag out. That doesn't make sense to me.
Here’s what I don’t get. They say they haven’t talked since 2013, but Apple has revised the hardware of the Apple Watch *sensor* at least once since then.
Is this a case of an overly broad patent if it applies to seemingly several different hardware variations? Or did the original sensors infringe, Apple redesigned, and the case is without merit?
I’d love to know actual *details* on the infringement, especially because the CEO is saying it’s hardware based.
Is this a case of an overly broad patent if it applies to seemingly several different hardware variations? Or did the original sensors infringe, Apple redesigned, and the case is without merit?
I’d love to know actual *details* on the infringement, especially because the CEO is saying it’s hardware based.
Probably will demand a significantly higher settlement now, since they've got Apple over a barrel.
Those rulings could be overturned, so they aren’t objective. When the dust settles, this whole scenario could look very different.
The patent claims are largely hardware specific but there is a "functional limitation" that requires the watch to perform oxygen saturation analysis without specifying how the watch actually performs that function. So if Apple can get outside of this functional limitation, however it was interpreted by the ITC, they can avoid infringement even if the hardware is otherwise covered by the patent claim.
Edit to add: I'm just spit balling here but one way to get around the functional limitation might be (maybe) to replace the percentage number with something like "normal" or "below average".
Last edited:
I mean, they’re not required to negotiate. They can simply say they don’t want to license the patent, and that’s that. They may be willing to discuss licensing if Apple comes to them with an offer but be perfectly fine not doing so.
He keeps saying this, with emphasis on "improving their product." What he means is that Masimo doesn't license patents outright. They always require you to also enter into purchasing agreements for their chips.
Kiani is being coy here; he won't grant a license unless Apple accepts his "help" with "improving the product" (i.e., buys Masimo's chips and uses them in every watch). Apple isn't interested in this because they do not need Masimo's chips; their hardware is better because it's explicitly designed for the Apple Watch and its small form factor.
Kiani acts like a patent troll who smells money and is duplicitous and disingenuous.
See above; Kiani is being coy. He's not interested in selling a license; he's interested in forcing a supply agreement of some hardware collecting dust as a requirement for the license sale.
Suppose you throw a bunch of patents against the wall to see what sticks; a judge dismisses half of your claims offhand because they're so ridiculous. Simultaneously, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidates 15 of your patents because they are bogus. In that case, you are a patent troll in my book.
But we're not reading the same book.
I've been following your replies on others regarding what is and isn't a case and what does and doesn't constitute a trial, etc., and respectfully, I think you need clarification on what's going on here.
Three cases are at play here: one before a California court that started in 2020, Apple's lawsuit against Masimo being handled in Delaware, and the ITC case.
The California case wasn't going so well for Masimo. As I've explained above, the judge outright dismissed half of the claims, most of the patents involved in the case got invalidated, and in the end, all but one juror ruled in favor of Apple. Nevertheless, since a case needs to be decided unanimously, the judge declared a mistrial, and a new date is to be set.
This case is still ongoing, and its outcome has yet to be settled (not to mention the appeals that could follow).
Masimo didn't like how that case was going, so they went to the ITC, hoping to get a more favorable outcome. The ITC is an agency that's part of the executive branch and mainly decides within the context of imports. The ITC mostly mirrored the California judge in dismissing most of Masimo's claims except for two (nearly identical) patents.
But in this country, the courts have the final say; this ITC ruling is the first step in a more extended series of steps. The next step is for the President to overrule the ITC (he's the head of the executive branch, after all), and once that period ends, Apple can appeal it with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. But they can only do that after the Presidential Review Period has ended on December 26.
From there, it goes through the regular appeals process (i.e., Court of Appeals, Supreme Court).
Then there's the case in Delaware. During the case in California, and two years after Masimo had gained confidential documents from Apple on the Apple Watch's design and production as part of the discovery process, Masimo launched their own watch, the W1. Apple is alleging that Masimo has used these confidential documents to rush out what they consider an Apple Watch clone, and in doing so, again, as Apple alleges, Masimo has violated several of Apple's patents.
Apple's theory of the case is that Masimo used confidential documents to make the clone and is using patent lawsuits to get the Apple Watch off the market to have a better chance at capturing the market.
The Delaware case is in full swing, and the outcome is still up in the air.
All in all, Masimo is looking less and less like an innocent victim here, and this whole matter is nowhere near a done deal.
Mr Kiani's language reveals a lot about him and his motives. He is trying to extort money. Apple could just disable the blood oxygen SW in the watch. It is a gimmick in my opinion.
Those who went to work for Apple from Masimo may be those who have their names on the patents in question. Does Masimo have the only authority over the patents?
Yes, and that wouldn't be the kind of contingency plan I'd consider.
Apple could just buy them with their spare change. Their market cap is $6.1 billion.
In addition to their healthcare products, Masimo bought Sound United in 2022. That includes Definitive Technology, Polk Audio, Denon, Marantz and Bowers & Wilkins. Those brands could be an interesting fit. Apple is number one in headphones with AirPods and Beats. They could become number one in home audio. Imagine receivers powered by tvOS. No need for a separate Apple TV. I'd be interested!
Apple could keep any healthcare tech they're interested in and sell or spin off the rest of the company.
In addition to their healthcare products, Masimo bought Sound United in 2022. That includes Definitive Technology, Polk Audio, Denon, Marantz and Bowers & Wilkins. Those brands could be an interesting fit. Apple is number one in headphones with AirPods and Beats. They could become number one in home audio. Imagine receivers powered by tvOS. No need for a separate Apple TV. I'd be interested!
Apple could keep any healthcare tech they're interested in and sell or spin off the rest of the company.
One could assume they miscalculated on the potential for a White House Veto.
No matter that the technology works for people, and is useful, it is only about money, as always.
It isn't a gimmick; the watch readings I got at the Doc office was spot on to what the real medical equipment measured.
I have not checked but almost certainly the inventors assigned away their patent rights to Masimo, so the patents belong to Masimo alone.