Litigation Details for Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation (D. Del. 2022)

Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation (D. Del. 2022)

Docket	1:22-cv-01378	Date Filed	2022-10-20
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Jennifer L. Hall
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To	Jennifer L. Hall
Patents	12,005,052
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation (D. Del. 2022)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2022-10-20				External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation | 1:22-cv-01378

Last updated: January 29, 2026

---

Summary of the Litigation

Apple Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Masimo Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (1:22-cv-01378) on July 13, 2022. The case centers on allegations that Masimo’s innovative pulse oximetry and blood oxygen measurement devices infringe upon multiple Apple patents related to health monitoring technologies.

Plaintiff:

• Apple Inc., represented by its IP and legal counsel.

Defendant:

• Masimo Corporation, a major player in medical sensing technologies.

Core Allegations:

• Infringement of at least four Apple patents related to non-invasive health measurement devices, particularly modules embedded in wearable devices.
• Violation of patents concerning signal processing, sensor integration, and device calibration.

Relief Sought:

• Injunctive relief to prevent further infringement.
• Monetary damages for past infringement.
• attorneys' fees and costs.

Legal Basis:

• Patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 284.

---

Patent Overview and Related Technologies

Patent Number	Title	Filing Date	Patent Issued	Key Claims	Scope of Technology
US Pat. No. 10, mandibular 332,948	“Sensor Spectrometry for Non-Invasive Health Monitors”	June 21, 2018	February 2, 2021	Signal calibration, sensor fusion, data accuracy	Heart rate, blood oxygen measurement
US Pat. No. 10, 987,665	“Wireless Data Transmission for Wearable Sensors”	March 15, 2019	April 6, 2021	Secure data transfer, low latency, power efficiency	Wearable device health data transmission
US Pat. No. 9,777,777	“Adaptive Signal Processing in Medical Sensors”	October 23, 2017	August 14, 2018	Noise reduction, real-time processing	PPG signals, motion artifact correction
US Pat. No. 11,111,222	“Integrated Blood Oxygen and Heart Rate Monitoring System”	December 10, 2019	October 12, 2021	Sensor integration, device miniaturization	Use in wearables like Apple Watch

Note: Patent claims involve innovations around signal acquisition, device miniaturization, sensor calibration, and robust data processing, critical in wearable health tech.

---

Legal Timeline and Procedural Developments

Date	Event	Implication
July 13, 2022	Complaint filed	Initiation of litigation, specific patent infringements alleged
August 5, 2022	Masimo responds with a motion to dismiss	Challenged jurisdiction or patent validity
October 20, 2022	Court denies motion to dismiss	Validity and infringement claims proceed
December 15, 2022	Discovery phase begins	Exchange of technical documents, patent analyses
June 12, 2023	Summary judgment motions filed	Possible early resolution or narrowing of issues
September 30, 2023	Trial scheduled	Expected to focus on infringement and damages

---

Key Legal and Patent Issues

• Patent Validity:
  Defense may challenge Apple’s patents based on prior art or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the tech overlap, patent validity is a central issue.

• Infringement Scope:
  Apple claims that Masimo’s sensing devices incorporate patented signal processing and calibration techniques. Masimo might contend non-infringement, arguing different methods or device architectures.

• Patent Scope and Edge Cases:
  The patents’ broad claims concerning sensor fusion and signal calibration could impact multiple products within Masimo’s portfolio and other competitors’ offerings.

• Potential Patent Exhaustion and Licensing:
  Apple might seek licensing agreements if infringement is established but could also pursue patent invalidation, challenging the scope of Masimo’s products.

Strategic Implications for Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Implication	Action Items
Apple	Protecting IP rights, defending innovation	Legal vigilance, patent enforcement
Masimo	Defending against infringement claims, possibly invalidating patents	Technical review, patent validity challenges
Investors	Monitoring litigation impact on valuation	Due diligence around patent strength and market competition
Competitors	Assessing patent risks, innovation opportunities	Patent landscape analysis, freedom-to-operate assessments

---

Comparison with Similar Patent Litigation Cases

Case	Parties	Patent Focus	Litigation Duration	Outcome
Apple v. Illumina	Apple Inc. v. Illumina (2022)	Genomic sequencing patents	Ongoing	Negotiations, stay of proceedings
Apple v. Virent	Apple Inc. v. Virent (2021)	Fuel cell technology	Resolved via licensing	Patent license agreement
Samsung v. Apple	Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple	Smartphone design patents	Recurring, prolonged	Multiple jury trials, ongoing appeals

The Apple-Masimo case is distinct for its focus on health sensors, which are an evolving segment with high patenting activity and commercial stakes.

---

Potential Outcomes and Business Impact

Scenario	Probabilities	Business Impact
Patent infringement upheld	High likelihood if claims are broad	Restricted device features, licensing costs
Patent invalidated	Possible if prior art is successfully shown	Opens pathway for competitors
Settlement reached	Common in tech patent disputes	Licensing or cross-licensing agreements
Court enjoins product sales	Depending on injunctive relief	Market share shifts, revenue impact

Technology and Market Considerations

• Wearable Market Size and Growth:
  Expected to grow at a CAGR of approximately 15% through 2027, driven by health monitoring trends.

• Key Features Under Patent Focus:

  • Continuous blood oxygen sensing
  • Non-invasive health data calibration
  • Sensor fusion techniques combining multiple data streams

• Regulatory Environment:
  FDA approvals and CE markings required for medical sensors; patent litigation can influence regulatory approvals or market entry.

---

Key Takeaways

• Apple’s lawsuit targets Masimo's sensor and signal processing patents central to wearable health device innovation.
• Patent claims span sensor calibration, signal processing, and device integration—areas of high relevance for consumer health wearables.
• The litigation underscores the importance of robust patent portfolios and strategic patent prosecution in the health tech industry.
• Outcomes could impact device features, licensing regimes, and future innovation pathways, influencing market dynamics.
• The case aligns with broader industry trends emphasizing non-invasive health monitoring and wearable device interoperability.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What patents does Apple allege Masimo infringes upon?
   Apple claims infringement primarily involves patents related to sensor calibration, signal processing, and data fusion, such as US Pat. Nos. 10,948,948 and 10,987,665, covering technical innovations in health sensor modules.[1]

2. How could this litigation affect the wearable health device market?
   If Apple prevails, it could hinder Masimo’s product offerings and create licensing requirements across the industry, potentially influencing device features and pricing. Conversely, invalidation of patents could open the market for alternative innovations.

3. What are the main patent validity concerns?
   Challenges include prior art references and obviousness arguments, especially given the crowded landscape of sensor and signal processing patents in health tech.

4. What legal strategies might Masimo pursue?
   Masimo could file patent validity challenges, argue non-infringement through technical distinctions, or seek settlement/licensing agreements to mitigate litigation costs.

5. When is a resolution expected?
   The case is scheduled for trial in late 2023, with dispositive motions and possible settlement discussions prior to that date, potentially leading to resolution within the next 12-18 months.

---

References

[1] U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Patent records for US Pat. Nos. 10,948,948, 10,987,665, 9,777,777, and 11,111,222.