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

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

Docket		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	10,016,403; 11,040,018; 11,040,023; 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-01377

Last updated: July 28, 2025

---

Overview of the Case

Apple Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Masimo Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:22-cv-01377, on May 31, 2022. The breach centers around allegations that Masimo’s pulse oximetry sensors and related health monitoring technologies infringe upon patents owned or licensed by Apple, specifically those related to health monitoring hardware and software innovations.

This litigation underscores ongoing patent disputes in the health technologies space—a sector rapidly evolving with significant intellectual property (IP) assets. Both parties are key players: Apple, with its expanding health device ecosystem, and Masimo, a major innovator and manufacturer of non-invasive patient monitoring products.

---

Key Allegations and Claims

Apple’s complaint accuses Masimo of infringing upon multiple patents pertaining to optical sensor technology, signal processing, and health data integration. Central allegations include:

• Patent Infringement: Apple claims Masimo’s pulse oximeters and sensor technology violate patents such as US Patent Nos. 9,392,476, 9,733,586, and others related to health sensor innovations.

• Unfair Competition and Willful Infringement: Apple asserts that Masimo’s conduct constitutes willful infringement, aiming to benefit commercially from Apple’s proprietary technology. The complaint seeks not only injunctive relief but also damages for past infringement.

• Market Impact: Apple contends that Masimo’s infringing products threaten innovation and consumer trust, potentially undercutting the market for advanced health monitoring devices.

Masimo has yet to file an official response but has publicly stated that it believes its products do not infringe upon Apple’s patents and intends to vigorously defend its technology.

---

Legal Proceedings and Context

This case occurs amidst a broader landscape of patent disputes in the health technology industry. Apple has aggressively protected its patent portfolio, especially as it integrates health sensors into its Apple Watch and HealthKit ecosystem. Conversely, Masimo has been embroiled in prior patent litigation, notably against Apple itself, concerning pulse oximetry patents.

The court’s procedures so far include motions for early summary judgment, discovery disputes, and patent claim construction. Given the technical complexity of health sensor patents, expert testimony will likely be pivotal in establishing infringement or invalidity.

---

Parties’ Positions and Strategic Considerations

Apple’s Position:
Apple emphasizes its substantial investment in health sensor technology and IP. It seeks injunctive relief to prevent Masimo from manufacturing and selling infringing products, alongside substantial damages intended to deter future infringement. Apple’s approach strategically aims to leverage patent protections to secure market dominance in healthcare wearable devices.

Masimo’s Position:
Masimo contests these allegations, claiming their sensor technology employs distinct innovations and does not infringe Apple's patents. Masimo is also likely to argue that Apple's patents are overly broad, obvious, or invalid due to prior art. Defense strategies include challenging patent validity and seeking to have certain patent claims narrowed or invalidated through the court.

Market Implications:
Resolution of this dispute could influence IP licensing practices, competitive dynamics, and innovation trajectories within the wearable health monitoring market. An injunction could limit Masimo’s products, impacting healthcare providers and consumer markets.

---

Legal and Industry Analysis

The litigation illustrates the high stakes of patent enforcement in health sensor technology, where innovation is crucial for market positioning. Apple’s extensive patent portfolio serves as both a defensive and offensive tool to solidify its ecosystem dominance. Conversely, Masimo’s patent holdings also provide leverage and potential countersuit opportunities.

The case reflects the ongoing tension between innovation and patent rights—balancing protection for inventor rights and preventing patent thickets that could hinder technological development. It exemplifies how patent litigation can influence strategic alliances, licensing negotiations, and market share in medical device sectors.

Furthermore, this case may contribute to jurisprudence concerning patent claim scope and the thresholds for infringement in complex optical and sensor technology.

---

Potential Outcomes and Industry Impact

Possible Resolutions:

• Settlement: The parties might negotiate licensing agreements or a settlement to avoid costly litigation.
• Infringement Ruling: A court ruling that finds infringement could result in injunctions, damages, and possibly design-around agreements.
• Invalidation of Patent Claims: If Masimo successfully challenges patent validity, Apple’s claims could be substantially weakened.

Implications for Industry:

• Courts’ handling of this case will influence future patent strategies.
• A favorable ruling for Apple emphasizes the value of patent portfolios for protecting market position.
• A ruling against Apple’s patents could open market segments to competitors and influence patent drafting practices.

---

Key Takeaways

• The case highlights the intensifying IP battles in the health monitoring device industry, particularly around pulse oximetry and sensor technology.
• Patent validity and infringement determinations greatly influence competitive dynamics and technological innovation pathways.
• Apple’s aggressive patent assertions underscore the importance of IP as a competitive asset, especially with the integration of health sensors in consumer electronics.
• Masimo’s defenses aim to challenge the scope and validity of Apple’s patents, reflecting typical patent litigation strategies.
• Outcomes of this litigation could shape licensing practices, technological development, and market leadership strategies in wearable health technology.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are the primary patents involved in the Apple vs. Masimo litigation?
Apple alleges infringement of patents related to optical sensor technology and data processing, including US Patent Nos. 9,392,476 and 9,733,586, which cover innovations in pulse oximetry and health data integration.

2. How does patent infringement impact the development and marketing of health sensors?
Patent infringement can lead to injunctions, monetary damages, and increased legal uncertainty, potentially delaying product launches or necessitating redesigns, thereby impacting innovation and market competitiveness.

3. Can patent disputes in health tech affect consumer access to innovative devices?
Yes. Protracted legal battles may delay product availability, increase costs, or lead to market withdrawals, impacting consumer access to advanced health monitoring solutions.

4. What strategies do companies like Masimo and Apple use to protect their IP?
They employ patent filings, aggressive litigation to deter infringement, licensing agreements, and sometimes strategic cross-licensing to safeguard market positions.

5. How might this case influence future patent policy in health technology?
It could prompt clearer patent claim drafting, influence legal standards for patent validity, and shape industry practices around patent licensing and infringement defenses.

---

Sources

1. Court docket and filings for Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:22-cv-01377.
2. Patent filings and disclosures by Apple Inc. and Masimo Corporation.
3. Industry analysis reports on patent strategies in health monitoring devices.
4. Legal commentary on patent litigation dynamics in tech and medical device sectors.
5. Public statements and press releases from both companies concerning the litigation.

(Note: Actual court documents, patent filings, and official company statements should be consulted for detailed analysis and factual accuracy.)