US trade tribunal to consider new Apple Watch import ban
News Summary
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) decided on Friday to hold a new proceeding to determine whether Apple's redesigned Apple Watches still infringe medical monitoring technology company Masimo's patents covering blood-oxygen measurement technology, potentially leading to a new import ban. This follows a previous ITC ban in 2023 on Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 imports due to patent infringement. Apple subsequently removed the blood-oxygen reading technology to avoid the ban but reintroduced an updated version in August 2025 with approval from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an approval Masimo is now challenging. Separately, amidst the contentious multi-front patent battle, a California jury on Friday determined Apple owes Masimo $634 million in damages for patent infringement. The dispute also includes a mistrial in Masimo's 2023 trade-secret case against Apple, and Apple's own counter-suit win of $250 against Masimo in Delaware last year.
Background
This news marks the latest development in the ongoing, contentious, and multi-front patent dispute between Apple and Masimo. Masimo, an Irvine, California-based medical monitoring technology company, has long accused Apple of poaching its employees to steal its pulse-oximetry innovations. In 2023, the ITC previously found Apple infringed Masimo's patents, leading to an import ban on Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches. Apple circumvented this by removing the blood-oxygen feature. However, in August 2025, Apple reintroduced an updated version of the technology after receiving approval from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a move Masimo immediately challenged legally. Beyond the ITC investigation, Masimo has also sued Apple in California federal court for patent infringement and trade-secret theft. Concurrently, Apple has challenged the ITC's previous ban at a federal appeals court and won a $250 verdict against Masimo in Delaware in 2024 in a countersuit alleging Masimo's smartwatches infringed two Apple design patents. These legal actions highlight the escalating competition between the two companies in the medical wearable technology space.
In-Depth AI Insights
What are the deeper implications of this ITC review and jury verdict for Apple's brand reputation and market strategy? - While the $634 million damages might be a fraction of Apple's vast financial resources, repeated patent infringement findings, especially concerning critical blood-oxygen monitoring technology, could tarnish its brand image for innovation and originality. This might lead to increased scrutiny in the highly competitive premium wearable device market. - Persistent legal challenges, particularly potential import bans, could disrupt supply chains and product launch schedules, especially during crucial holiday shopping seasons. This not only adds operational costs but could also erode consumer confidence, potentially prompting some users to consider alternative brands. What are Masimo's true strategic objectives in its prolonged legal battle against Apple? - Masimo's strategy likely extends beyond monetary compensation. They may aim to legally impede Apple's expansion into the medical monitoring space, thereby safeguarding their own market share and technological leadership in professional medical devices. Apple's widespread adoption of advanced medical features in smartwatches directly threatens Masimo's core business model. - The ongoing litigation could also be a negotiation tactic, forcing Apple into more favorable licensing agreements or seeking to enhance Masimo's bargaining power by hindering Apple's innovation in core functionalities. What broader implications does this patent dispute have for the future competitive landscape of the wearable medical device industry? - This incident underscores the critical importance of patent protection and technological barriers in the rapidly evolving wearable medical device sector. Smaller, innovative companies like Masimo can pose substantial challenges to tech giants through patent litigation, thereby balancing market power. - It may also prompt other tech companies to exercise greater caution when entering the health tech space, increasing scrutiny of potential patent infringement risks, and possibly driving more technology licensing collaborations or M&A activities within the industry to avoid similar legal entanglements. For investors, this suggests a potential shift in the risk-reward profile of investments in this sector.