In a recent development that has stirred the tech and healthcare industries, Apple Inc. is facing a significant legal hurdle. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled to ban the import of certain Apple Watches. This decision on the Apple watch import ban comes amidst a heated patent dispute with Masimo. This company specializes in medical monitoring technology.
At the center of this legal action is Apple’s implementation of pulse oximetry technology in its Series 6 Apple Watches, introduced in 2020. Pulse oximetry measures blood oxygen levels, a critical health metric. Masimo alleges that Apple not only poached its employees but also misappropriated its proprietary technology. This led to this innovative feature in Apple’s products.
Following a complaint by Masimo, the ITC, in December, ruled in favor of blocking the imports of Apple products, citing patent infringement. This in particular refers to the latest Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches.
Apple’s Counter-Move
In response to the ITC’s decision, Apple has vigorously appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Apple argues that the ITC’s ruling was marred by fundamentally flawed patent rulings. Additionally, Apple contends that Masimo did not demonstrate substantial investment in competing products within the U.S. market, which they argue should nullify the import ban.
Temporary Decision on Apple Watch Import Ban
After the ITC’s decision, Apple managed to secure a temporary lift of the ban, allowing sales to resume briefly. However, the appeals court reinstated the ban in January. As a result, Apple had to disable the pulse oximetry function in its watches sold during the appeal process. In a separate determination, U.S. Customs and Border Protection concluded that redesigned versions of the Apple Watches did not infringe on Masimo’s patents and were not subject to the ban.
As both companies continue to present their cases, the tech and healthcare industries, along with consumers worldwide, are keenly watching the outcome. This case not only impacts the future of wearable technology but also sets a precedent for how emerging technologies are protected and regulated.
Read more about gadgets on Tech and Devices.
