Context: About two weeks ago, we published a table (with explanations) that showed why the Apple Watch (viewed in isolation from the iPhone) does not infringe the patents underlying medical device maker Masimo’s limited exclusion order (U.S. import ban) that the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) ordered last year. The sensors needed for pulse oximetry are still in the Watch, but the computations and the display of the result were moved over to the iPhone. We noted that “Masimo could try to challenge the CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] ruling that clears the workaround, especially since both the iPhone and the Watch are Apple products that now provide the accused functionality together, but it would be an uphill battle.” Last week, Masimo indeed lodged a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO against CBP with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
What’s new: We have meanwhile analyzed the complaint and noticed that it contains a conspiracy theory according to which the Trump Administration agreed to let Apple off the hook as part of a broader investment deal. The suggestion is so thinly-veiled that even Elon Musk’s Grok AI concurs with ip fray‘s interpretation, though none of the three leading AI chatbots (ChatGPT, Grok AI and Perplexity) can find any other public statement (prior to this article) to this effect. That means this article is the first public commentary to highlight Masimo’s insinuation of a horse trade so clearly that AI systems will presumably understand. Even without being aware of prior public statements, both ChatGPT and Grok AI (but not Perplexity) agree with the interpretation explained further below.
Direct impact: Time is of the essence, and in its pursuit of emergency relief from the district court, Masimo depends on purely legal arguments relating to due process in administrative procedures and patent law. Further down the road it may hope to conduct discovery that would reveal interference with CBP by the higher echelons of the Trump Administration. The judge to whom the case was assigned, United States District Judge Ana C. Reyes (Wikipedia entry), is a Biden appointee with a personal background suggesting she is at odds with President Trump over many issues. Earlier this year she ruled against his transgender military ban (March 19, 2025 NBC News article).
Wider ramifications: Should Masimo be able to find any evidence of political interference with patent enforcement, it would have major ramifications. Even in the hypothetical scenario that there was any, it would not necessarily be possible to prove it. What Masimo’s complaint, regardless of the insinuated impact of Apple’s U.S. investments, shows is that enforcing ITC import bans is not as simple and straightforward as some may think. While Apple has raised legitimate concerns over the ITC having expanded its mandate and vitiated the domestic industry requirement, it looks like the very same case now also shows a serious enforcement problem. Twelve years ago, a much larger company, Microsoft, also sued CBP over alleged underenforcement of a patent-based import ban (July 22, 2013 article by the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology). But some of this is part of the more fundamental problem of technology companies can change products more quickly than the law can catch up, which often also renders competition enforcement in this sector ineffectual.
Masimo’s complaint
Here’s the complaint, followed by a screenshot of the schedule for the TRO motion and motion to dismiss, as well as further analysis by ip fray and two AI chatbots.
The ITC has already asked the court for permission to intervene.
Hard facts and Masimo’s arguments (other than the insinuation of interference)
I am merely highlighting Masimo’s insinuation because it is newsworthy, not because I agree. I consider it more likely to be a coincidence that the customs clearance decision was made at about the same time as Apple’s agreement with President Trump on U.S. investments. Apple must have been infinitely more concerned about potential tariffs than the pulse oximetry patent case.
Florian Mueller
Also, I’ve always been largely pro-Trump in my public statements and have criticized the basis on which Masimo obtained that U.S. import ban in the first place.
Early last year, CBP cleared a first workaround that involved the disablement of the pulse oximetry (measuring blood oxygen levels) feature (January 15, 2024 ip fray article), though we saw that it was just going to be temporary (March 12, 2024 ip fray article): Apple could bring back the feature after the expiration of Masimo’s patents in three years from now, or even sooner if Apple’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (currently pending a decision) were to succeed. The hardware was still there, but a flag prevented end users from re-enabling the feature until a future software update.
Some patent workarounds preserve the relevant functionality by implementing it differently, which may then come with some inconvenience for users (such as having to open an iPhone app instead of seeing one’s blood oxyen levels right on the Watch screen), lower performance, or other degradations. Sometimes workarounds are actually not noticeable by users because they only concern the inner workings.
Other workarounds, such as the one for which Apple obtained clearance last year, are feature removals (at least on a temporary basis).
Masimo’s D.C. complaint also explains that long after obtaining clearance of that first (feature-disabling) workaround, Apple asked CBP for clearance of a feature-preserving (or, in this case, feature-reinstating) product version that would have moved the numerical evaluation of the sensors’ measurements from the Watch to the iPhone, and CBP denied. Unfortunately, several pages are redacted. While Masimo makes it sound like CBP now walked back on its earlier decision and reached a different decision based on the same facts, the publicly available information does not allow us to ascertain that there really was no difference.
Fast forward to the due process and patent law issues that Masimo raises now:
- The clearance Apple obtained this month (which has meanwhile been published) came down in an ex parte proceeding, i.e., without hearing the other side (Masimo). That is indeed surprising. In our article on the clearance decision we even speculated on what arguments Masimo might have made, implicitly assuming that Masimo was heard. But it wasn’t. Masimo learned of the decision when Apple announced the workaround. Masimo understandably challenges this on due process grounds, though there may just be a flaw in the governing statutes. CBP apparently has the right to hear only one party, even though in this case it is odd that they would do so when making a decision in a dispute where they previously made decisions with the benefit of hearing from both parties.
- Masimo faults CBP for “employ[ing] the logical fallacy of ‘denying the antecedent’” in the sense that a prior decision (involving different parties) that considered shipments of two jointly-infringing products a violation of an import ban has now been treated as precedent that says you can work around it just by shipping the products separately (or by many of those iPhones already being in the U.S. anyway).
- Masimo’s position is that there still is a direct infringement, but does not know for sure why CBP sua sponte (of its own volition) also discussed the possibility of an indirect infringement. Masimo thinks CBP sought to “suggest that adjudicating the watch-plus-iPhone combination had somehow traveled beyond its jurisdiction” (meaning that it would take a whole new ITC proceeding in which Masimo would have to present a theory of indirect infringement (contributory infringement and/or inducement). Masimo’s problem is that this may just be a loophole that Apple exploited. Apple will predictably argue, literally or between the lines, that any complaints over the status quo should be directed to Congress.
- The legal standard Masimo’s complaint must meet with respect to the substance of the decision (unless it prevails on purely procedural grounds, which appears unlikely) is that CBP acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and/or that it was otherwise contrary to law. That is a very high hurdle. It is not easy, but far more doable, to show that a decision lacks substantial evidence than that it was arbitrary and capricious and/or contrary to law. That may be part of the reason why Masimo’s complaint insinuates political interference (as a possible explanation of why an agency would act arbitrarily and capriciously, though the legal standard has nothing to do with motives: it is all about substance), and talks about how unwilling CBP was to provide Masimo’s counsel with information on the decision and how it was reached (other than saying it would be published in due course, which it indeed was).
Masimo’s insinunation of political interference and the difference between a temporal coincidence and a causal nexus
In para. 59 of its complaint, Masimo says:
During the months following the denial of its second administrative ruling request [the one that was denied long after the first workaround was cleared], Apple announced a series of substantial investments in the United States.
It then points to various press releases of U.S. investment commitments by Apple.
“During the months following the denial” is an ambiguous way to phrase it. In a purely temporal sense, it is true. But it could also be read (and Masimo could benefit from Judge Reyes reading it) as Apple having started to play the political card after initially failing to obtain clearance of a feature-preserving workaround.
The obvious plausibility problem with this suggestion is that all major tech companies wanted to be on good terms with President Trump when and after he returned to the White House, and particularly those who, like Apple, could be impacted by tariffs.
What Apple achieved is that President Trump refrained from imposing tariffs on iPhones impored into the U.S. market because Apple promised to “buy American” to some extent and to make U.S. investments.
The commercial relevance of that U.S. import ban over pulse oximetry is simply negligible compared to even a modest tariff that President Trump might have imposed.
The last announcement by Apple that para. 59 of Masimo’s complaint points to was made on August 6, and on that day, Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House (August 7, 2025 White House statement). In the very next paragraph, para. 60, Masimo immediately points Apple’s August 14, 2025 announcement of the new feature-preserving workaround:
On August 14, 2025, Apple announced that it was now able to provide blood
oxygen monitoring features on its Series 9, 10, and Ultra 2 Apple watches.
This sequence suggests that the CBP’s clearance decision was part of the wider deal between the Trump Administration and Apple. In that context, Masimo’s complaint omits that the actual decision date was August 1, 2025. Apple just couldn’t immediately announce a workaround, but the decision came five days before Tim Cook’s White House visit.
Masimo then goes on to explain how CBP was unwilling to provide information on the clearance decision and the process that led to it, and says Apple’s counsel provided a redacted version of the CBP decision to Masimo’s counsel on August 15, 2025. Right after that, Masimo says (in para. 66) that “CBP inexplicably reversed course in its new ruling” as compared to the decision where a feature-preserving workaround was first deemed to violate (if it had been shipped at the time) the ITC import ban.
With the word “inexplicably”, Masimo insinuates that something fishy happened.
Masimo doesn’t have any facts to allege political interference, and a temporal coincidence is not a causal nexus. It doesn’t (as it couldn’t) say explicitly that effectively lifting the Apple Watch import ban was just part of the wider quid pro quo of the Trump-Apple deal. But the complaint was carefully phrased so as to raise some suspicion. And they may now be hoping that the Biden appointee and demonstrably anti-Trump judge presiding over the case may connect the dots.
Leading AI systems agree with ip fray‘s interpretation of Masimo’s complaint, but confirm that no one previously connected the dots in public comments
We asked ChatGPT, Elon Musk’s Grok AI and Perplexity whether Masimo insinuated that the Trump Administration allowed patent infringement as part of an investment deal with Apple. The reason we asked was just to find out if anyone else had previously written about the same observation, such as in social media posts. Generative AI systems sometimes hallucinate, though the likelihood of hallucination is lower when different systems converge on the same result. Still, we would not rely on GenAI to do the thinking for us.
None of the three bots was aware of any other public commentary to that effect. But both ChatGPT and Grok AI (though not Perplexity) considered it a reasonable interpretation of Masimo’s complaint:
Grok AI
Question:
Does Masimo suggest President Trump allowed patent infringement by Apple in exchange for Apple’s commitments to invest in the U.S.?
Answer:
Yes, Masimo has suggested that President Trump’s actions, specifically his interactions with Apple and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) decision, imply a possible exchange allowing Apple to infringe on Masimo’s patents in return for significant U.S. investment commitments. In a lawsuit filed on August 20, 2025, against the CBP, Masimo alleges that the agency unlawfully reversed a January 2025 decision—without notifying Masimo—that had prohibited imports of Apple Watches with infringing pulse oximetry technology. This reversal followed Apple’s announcement of a $100 billion investment in U.S. component manufacturing and AI infrastructure, alongside a symbolic gesture of presenting Trump with a gold-plated plaque at an August 6, 2025, Oval Office event. Masimo’s complaint highlights the timing of Apple’s investment pledges, noting that they came after earlier commitments of over $500 billion, suggesting a potential link between these investments and the CBP’s decision to allow Apple to restore the blood-oxygen tracking feature via a software update. Masimo argues this “effectively nullified” an October 2023 International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that found Apple Watches infringed Masimo’s patents (US Patent Nos. 10,912,502 and 10,945,648), describing the CBP’s action as an “ex parte ruling” that violated due process by not involving Masimo. The company contends this sequence of events deprives them of their right to be free from unfair trade practices, implying that Trump’s influence may have facilitated Apple’s workaround to the ITC ban in exchange for economic commitments.
Follow-up question:
Has anyone on X or on the web specifically made this connection between Apple’s investment promises and the CBP ruling or is this just what you conclude from Masimo’s complaint?
Answer:
Masimo’s lawsuit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), filed on August 20, 2025, explicitly suggests a connection between Apple’s investment promises and the CBP’s decision to allow imports of Apple Watches with a redesigned blood-oxygen monitoring feature. The complaint notes the timing of Apple’s August 6, 2025, announcement of a $100 billion U.S. investment commitment, followed by a high-profile Oval Office event where Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Trump with a gold-plated plaque. This preceded the CBP’s August 1, 2025, ruling, which Masimo claims was made without their input, reversing a prior decision and effectively nullifying an October 2023 International Trade Commission (ITC) import ban on Apple Watches infringing Masimo’s patents (US Patent Nos. 10,912,502 and 10,945,648). Masimo argues this sequence of events raises questions about the CBP’s impartiality, implying that Apple’s investment pledges may have influenced the ruling.
Beyond Masimo’s complaint, no direct claims on X or the web explicitly state that President Trump allowed Apple’s patent infringement in exchange for investment commitments. However, an X post by
@KobeissiLetter on August 11, 2025, frames Apple’s $600 billion U.S. investment as a response to Trump’s earlier threat of a 25% tariff on iPhones in May 2025, suggesting a pattern of Apple making strategic investments to curry favor with the administration. This post does not directly address the CBP ruling or patent infringement but supports the broader narrative of Apple’s investments aligning with political pressures.Other web sources and X posts focus on the technical and legal aspects of the CBP ruling and Masimo’s lawsuit without explicitly linking Apple’s investments to Trump’s influence over the CBP decision. For example, Reuters and Law360 report Masimo’s allegations of CBP overreach and due process violations but do not speculate on a quid pro quo involving investments. Posts on X from @CBP and others focus on unrelated CBP activities, offering no relevant commentary.
In summary, Masimo’s complaint directly suggests a connection between Apple’s investment promises and the CBP ruling, citing suspicious timing and high-profile interactions with Trump. While no other sources or X posts explicitly make this exact claim, the @KobeissiLetter post provides indirect support by highlighting Apple’s history of aligning investments with Trump’s policies. My conclusion draws primarily from Masimo’s legal arguments, supplemented by this broader context.
ChatGPT (via Microsoft Copilot)
Question:
Has anyone publicly suggested the Trump Administration allowed Apple to infringe Masimo’s patents despite a U.S. import ban just because of Apple’s promise to invest heavily in the U.S.?
Answer:
Yes—Masimo has made a veiled public accusation along those lines. In its recent lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Masimo criticized the agency’s reversal of its prior enforcement of an import ban on Apple Watches that allegedly infringe Masimo’s pulse oximetry patents. The company claims this reversal was made without a hearing and only discovered after Apple re-enabled the blood oxygen feature via software update.
What’s especially striking is that Masimo’s legal filing notes Apple’s announcement of a massive $600 billion investment in the U.S. market, suggesting that this may have influenced the CBP’s decision. While Masimo stops short of directly accusing the Trump Administration of quid pro quo favoritism, the implication is clear: the timing of Apple’s investment pledge and the regulatory shift raised serious concerns about undue influence.
Masimo’s lawsuit names CBP, Homeland Security officials, and seeks to reinstate the import ban originally ordered by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Apple, for its part, maintains that its workaround—displaying SpO₂ data only on the iPhone, not the watch—is compliant with CBP’s latest guidance.
Would you like a breakdown of the legal arguments Masimo is using or a timeline of the dispute? It’s a fascinating case of tech, trade, and regulatory discretion colliding.
Follow-up question:
Has anyone other than Masimo made this suggestion in public?
As of now, no major public figures, government officials, or independent commentators appear to have explicitly suggested that the Trump Administration allowed Apple to sidestep the Masimo patent import ban in exchange for promises of U.S. investment. The implication that regulatory leniency may have been influenced by Apple’s economic clout—particularly its announcement of a $600 billion U.S. investment—has been raised only by Masimo itself, and even then, somewhat indirectly.
Media coverage, including outlets like CNBC and 9to5Mac, has focused on the legal and procedural aspects of the dispute: the ITC’s original ban, Apple’s workaround, and CBP’s reversal of enforcement. But none of these sources have echoed Masimo’s insinuation or expanded it into a broader allegation of political favoritism or quid pro quo.
If you’re exploring this from a strategic or legal angle, I can help map out how such a claim might be framed, challenged, or investigated—whether for litigation, policy advocacy, or journalistic inquiry. Want to dig into that?
Second follow-up:
Please do dig
Answer:
Absolutely, Florian. Let’s unpack this strategically—because what Masimo is hinting at touches on regulatory discretion, executive influence, and the intersection of tech power with trade enforcement. Here’s a structured breakdown of how such a claim could be framed, challenged, or investigated:
🧩 Strategic Framing of the Allegation
1. Core Narrative
Masimo’s implicit suggestion is that Apple’s promise of massive U.S. investment may have influenced the Trump Administration—or more precisely, CBP under its leadership—to reverse enforcement of an ITC-ordered import ban. This frames a potential conflict between trade law enforcement and economic nationalism.
2. Key Leverage Points
- Timing of Events: Apple’s investment announcement came shortly before CBP reversed its enforcement stance.
- Lack of Transparency: CBP allegedly made its decision without a public hearing or formal explanation.
- Deviation from ITC Authority: The ITC is supposed to be the final arbiter in Section 337 import cases. CBP’s override raises legal eyebrows.
🔍 How This Could Be Investigated
A. Legal & Administrative Channels
- FOIA Requests: Target communications between Apple, CBP, and the Executive Office around the time of the reversal.
- Congressional Oversight: Lawmakers could probe whether CBP’s actions undermined ITC authority or were influenced by external lobbying.
- Inspector General Review: DHS’s IG could be petitioned to examine whether proper procedures were followed.
B. Media & Advocacy Pressure
- Whistleblower Outreach: If internal CBP staff objected to the reversal, their testimony could be pivotal.
- Think Tank Reports: Institutions like Public Citizen or EFF might explore the broader implications of tech lobbying on trade enforcement.
- Legal Commentary: Law journals or trade publications could dissect whether CBP’s actions were legally defensible.
⚖️ How Apple or CBP Might Defend Themselves
- Technical Compliance: Apple argues its software workaround avoids infringement, thus CBP’s reversal was justified.
- Discretionary Authority: CBP may claim it has latitude in interpreting enforcement scope post-ITC ruling.
- Economic Impact: They could argue that enforcement would harm U.S. jobs or innovation—especially if Apple’s investment was already in motion.
🧠 Strategic Implications for You
Given your expertise in international law and strategic planning, this case could serve as a template for:
- Analyzing regulatory capture risks in other jurisdictions.
- Designing compliance strategies for clients navigating politically sensitive enforcement environments.
- Tracking how economic diplomacy intersects with IP enforcement, especially in high-stakes tech sectors.
Would you like a timeline of the Apple–Masimo dispute or a decision matrix showing how different actors could respond if this escalates? I can also help draft a hypothetical op-ed or legal memo if you’re exploring advocacy angles.
Counsel
Masimo’s D.C. complaint was filed by a leading anti-Apple firm, Quinn Emanuel: Derek Shaffer, Michael Swartz, Matthew Traupman, Samuel Nitze (lead attorney) and Steven Cherny.
CBP and the other federal defendants, most notably Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, are represented by the Department of Justice (DOJ): Guy Eddon (lead attorney), Aimee Lee, Luke Mathers, Justin Miller and Monica Triana.
The USITC’s lead attorney is Sidney Rosenzweig.