Apple Watch faces possible import ban due to patent dispute with Masimo

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani explains how the medical device maker plans to take on The Claman Countdown with the Apple Watch.

An intellectual property dispute could lead to an import ban on an Apple Watch model found to be a Masimo Corp. patent. injured.

In January, a US International Trade Commission (ITC) administrative judge issued an initial ruling in Masimo’s favor, finding that the Apple Watch Series 6 had twice infringed one of Masimo’s five patents because it used light sensors to measure blood oxygen levels in the Clock pulse oximeters were used. The judge found no violations related to Masimo’s claims that four of its other patents were infringed.

The case now goes before the full commission, which has the power to enforce an import ban on products that infringe intellectual property rights. A decision by the entire ITC in the dispute between Apple and Masimo could come this spring.

Apple announces disappointing first quarter results

The Apple Watch Series 8 will go on sale on September 16, 2022 at the company’s Fifth Avenue store in New York. (Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via /Getty Images)

Masimo has requested that the ITC enforce an injunction blocking the import of offending Apple Watch products, in addition to a cease and desist order. Masimo also requested that a bail be set during a 60-day presidential review period equal to “100% of the value” of the infringing products “because those products interfere with the public perception of pulse oximetry.”

In the original decision, ITC Administrative Judge Monica Bhattacharyya wrote that she “recommends that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order directed at Apple’s importation of infringing handheld electronic devices with light-based pulse oximetry capability and components thereof.”

SENATOR URGES GOOGLE AND APPLE TO BAN TIKTOK FROM APP STORES: “UNACCEPTABLE THREAT”

CEO Tim Cook introduces the new Apple Watch capable of taking an FDA-cleared electrocardiogram at the company’s annual product launch September 12, 2018 in Cupertino, California. (Karl Mondon/Digital First Media/The Mercury News via/Getty Images)

She also wrote that due to Apple’s “significant” commercial inventory and domestic operations, a cease-and-desist order must be issued against Apple, and that “current evidence of records does not support Apple’s required exception of service, repair and replacement.”

Judge Bhattacharyya declined to grant Masimo’s request for bail equal to “100% of the value” of the offending products, writing that the company “did not establish the need for bail in this investigation” because the evidence did not show Masimo Observe the product put up for sale to consumers and it’s not clear that the alleged damage to public perception hurt the company.

APPLE IS PERFORMING REVIEWS OF ITS HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY AND LABOR PRACTICES THIS YEAR

The Apple logo adorns the storefront in downtown Brooklyn in New York, March 14, 2020. (Kathy Willens, File/AP Newsroom)

Following the initial ruling, an Apple spokesperson said: “We respectfully disagree with today’s decision and look forward to a full review by the Commission.”

Joe Kiani, CEO of Masimo, said in a statement, “We are pleased that the ALJ has acknowledged Apple’s violation of Masimo’s pulse oximetry technology and has taken this critical first step toward accountability.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The ITC’s review of the dispute between Apple and Masimo comes after the commission ruled in December that Apple Watch infringed AliveCor’s patent for electrocardiogram (ECG) technology in smartwatches with pulse oximeters.

In the AliveCor case, the ITC issued a limited disclaimer, a cease and desist order, and set bail at $2 per unit of infringing Apple Watch sold during the President’s 60-day review period.

Portal contributed to this report.