Masimo keeps $634m smartwatch award and moves to appeal
Now a Danaher subsidiary, the company is contesting a number of orders after a California court finalised several aspects of the high-profile dispute.
A California judge has rejected Apple’s bid to overturn a jury verdict that ordered it to pay $634 million to Masimo as part of the pair’s high-profile smartwatch dispute, which is now heading for appellate proceedings.
In a final judgment entered yesterday (July 20), US District Judge James Selna affirmed the jury’s finding that Apple had infringed Masimo’s US patent 10,433,776, which covers blood oxygen monitoring technology.
The judge determined that Apple’s infringement was not willful, and that the relevant claims of the patent were not invalid.
Addressing Masimo’s trade secrets claims, which alleged that Apple had stolen proprietary pulse-oximetry know-how, Judge Selna formalised the findings that Apple had not misappropriated certain secrets but had done so with others.
However, this was not to lead to any injunction, monetary relief or attorneys’ fees for Masimo, which had failed to establish either irreparable harm or that it lacked an adequate monetary remedy.
In another win for Apple, the tech giant held on to ownership of five US patents covering inventions that Masimo had long staked a claim to.
These are US patent numbers 10,078,052; 10,247,670; 9,952,095; 10,219,754; and 11,009,390.
‘Patient monitor’ contested
Last year, Masimo hailed its $634 million jury award, delivered in November 2025, as a “significant win in our ongoing efforts to protect our innovations and intellectual property”.
Following the verdict, Apple told the court that “no reasonable jury” could have found the Apple Watch and its accused features infringed any claims of the ‘776 patent, or that Masimo was entitled to more than nominal damages.
Judgment as a matter of law “or at least a new trial” was required on all issues, the tech giant said, arguing that its watch could not be described as a “patient monitor”, as required by the patent’s claims.
Apple said its device was not designed to try and capture “all important medical events” as a patient monitor would, and that its accused ‘High/Low Notifications’ would “in fact miss many of those events”—functionality that was “perfectly acceptable in the broader context of a consumer device like Apple Watch”.
The company also argued for no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, contending that Masimo’s case rested on “conclusory statements” from an expert witness that “virtually any device measuring ‘medically relevant information’ satisfies the ‘patient monitor’ requirement”.
“The Federal Circuit rejected just such a ‘because I said so’ approach as insufficient as recently as last year,” Apple’s lawyers told the court.
Masimo appeals
On the same day as the final judgment was entered, Masimo filed a notice of appeal at the US District Court for the Central District of California.
The filing lists several orders dating back to 2021, including a 2023 order regarding lost profits, a 2024 ruling on claim construction, and the latest final judgment entered on July 20.
A Knobbe Martens team is representing Masimo, which was acquired by Danaher in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $9.9 billion that was completed in June this year.
Apple—represented by WilmerHale—said last year that it disagreed with the jury verdict and planned to appeal.
In separate proceedings earlier this year, Masimo failed to convince the International Trade Commission (ITC) to reinstate an import ban on redesigned Apple Watches.
Masimo also sued US Customs and Border Protection in August 2025 for “unlawfully” allowing imports to the US of the redesigned watches—a case that was dismissed with prejudice in April.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Our free newsletters send stories like this straight to your inbox
