SKYLAR POLLOCK—As the saying goes, “time is the most valuable thing a man can spend.” In this rapidly changing landscape, where smartwatches evolve from simple timekeepers to multifunctional devices, the field of smartwatch makers has become inundated with legal battles, particularly concerning their key features and intellectual property. The complex and lengthy legal process underscores the importance of time and financial resources necessary to enforce or defend patent disputes.
As part of a years-long patent dispute between Apple and Masimo, a medical technology company that develops patient monitoring devices, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) ruled that certain Apple Watches violated Masimo’s patents for its oximeter features since 2020. Masimo’s patented technology uses light to determine a user’s blood-oxygen levels. According to court documents, Masimo and Apple engaged in discussions about using its medical technology tools in Apple products, but no deal was ever reached. Masimo founder and CEO Joe Kiani additionally alleges the tech giant poached two Masimo executives and engineers, improperly acquiring company trade secrets to illegally duplicate its technology.
The Commission issued an import ban on Apple Watches that include this feature, dating back to its 2020 Series 6 model and onward. The Apple Watch ban was set to take effect on December 26, 2023; however, the tech giant prematurely started pulling its watch products from stores on December 21, just days before Christmas.
Denying it violated any Masimo patents, Apple filed an appeal against the ban. On January 3, 2024, the US. Court of Appeals granted Apple’s emergency motion to pause the ITC order. Affected Apple Watches, including the Series 9 and Ultra 2, reappeared in certain Apple stores on December 27 and on its website on December 28 of last year. The Appeals Court’s decision permits Apple to continue selling its watches temporarily while it awaits news on its proposed changes to the watches to avoid further patent violation allegations.
Federal courts are also considering whether the sale of two newer watches should be suspended until the patent dispute is resolved. On January 10, 2024, the ITC formally opposed the resumption of Apple Watch sales during the lengthy appeal process. ITC lawyers argue that Apple presents a “weak and unconvincing case to invoke the extraordinary remedy of a stay pending appeal” and that the appeal “amount[s] to little more than an indisputably adjudicated infringer requesting permission to continue infringing the asserted patents.”
This January marks the fourth anniversary of intellectual property disputes between Apple and Masimo regarding Apple’s blood-oxygen measurement technology. Kiani suggests that Masimo has already spent over $100 million in fighting the current patent and trade secret litigations against Apple and will not stop until Apple changes the way it does business with smaller companies. While Kiani has hinted that the medical technology company would accept a settlement offer, Apple has yet to propose any sort of resolution. Though many called Kiani crazy for taking on Apple’s unlimited resources in a David and Goliath legal battle, it serves as a lesson about the burdens on small businesses to protect their intellectual property.
Though smaller businesses can effectively enforce their intellectual property rights, the unlimited time and resources of industry giants can create significant challenges. The prolonged legal proceedings may drain the financial and human resources of smaller businesses, making it difficult for them to sustain the fight. This highlights the need for greater regulatory frameworks to assist the unique struggles and more limited resources of smaller entities in protecting their intellectual property, and it prompts a broader conversation for a more equitable environment for innovation and competition. In patent litigation, time is power.
