Context:
- Last month, life sciences company Danaher announced (February 19, 2026 ip fray article) the acquisition of Masimo, a medical technology maker.
- Late last year, Masimo had good news in its dispute with Apple over the pulse oximetry feature of the Apple Watch. It won a $634M damages verdict and, through an appeal with a federal court, effectively persuaded the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC; a U.S. trade agency with quasi-judicial powers) to launch an enforcement inquiry into the compliance of Apple’s workaround with the limited exclusion order (U.S. import ban) Masimo had achieved (November 16, 2025 ip fray article). That workaround was cleared by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
What’s new:
- The United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has just affirmed the original ITC ruling. That means Apple’s appeal was unsuccessful.
- But Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Monica Bhattacharyya of the ITC found no infringement on the basis of an Apple Watch and an iPhone being paired to offer end users the functionality covered by patent claims that relate to monolithic devices. She gave notice of her recommended determination yesterday.
Direct impact: The outcome in the Federal Circuit does not give Masimo any leverage in practice if (and this is an important “if”) the Commission (the top-level decision making body of the ITC) adopts ALJ Bhattacharyya’s recommended determination. The Commission could reach a different conclusion than the ALJ. It is not bound by the recommendation. But an adoption of the recommendation is more likely than a reversal.
Wider ramifications: The case raised some interesting issues about the scope of the ITC’s jurisdiction. But observers of the hearing doubted that the Federal Circuit was convinced of Apple’s arguments. Apple and some other large companies would like to lobby for legislation that would narrow the scope of the ITC’s jurisdiction, but the hurdle is high, especially at a time where the U.S. government wants to rebuild domestic manufacturing.
Apple will be able to bring back the feature in its original form when the patents underlying the import ban expire in about 2.5 years from now (August 14, 2025 ip fray article). In the meantime, Apple Watch users can find the analysis of their blood oxygen levels on their iPhones.
Here’s s the Federal Circuit’s affirmance and the related opinion:
The docket text furthermore says:
JUDGMENT. AFFIRMED. Terminated on the merits after oral argument. COSTS: Costs taxed against Appellant(s). Mandate to issue in due course.
Here are the court’s reasons:
Now the recommended determination by ALJ Bhattacharyya, proposing that Apple be cleared of a violation of the import ban:
Reasoning
The Fed. Cir. published its judgment in a short form, but separately also the reasons.
The most fundamental issue was whether Masimo had satisfied the ITC’s domestic industry requirement with what Apple described as drawings and plans. For any observer it was easy to see that Masimo never seriously intended to compete in the smartwatch market. The “Masimo Watch” served no other practical purpose but to go to the ITC and seek an import ban. The Federal Circuit, however, disagrees with Apple’s arguments. Among other things, the appeals court wirtes that “the ALJ and the Commission appropriately treated the Masimo Watch as the domestic industry article and viewed the CAD [computer-aided design] drawings contained in the complaint and the physical prototypes Masimo produced in discovery as successive embodiments of that same article.”
Another domestic industry argument was that Masimo did not present a single article, but the Federal Circuit holds that “[t]he law is not so rigid” and it just takes some “representative involved domestic industry article”.
Contrary to what Apple argued, the Federal Circuit considers it appropriate for the ITC to rely on evidence (for the existence of a domestic industry) that is produced during the course of the investigation.
After the domestic industry part, the Federal Circuit turns to claim construction and affirms the ITC’s interpretation of “over” and “above” as well as “openings”/”through holes”. It also agrees with the ITC declining to consider the asserted patents invalid.
The 12-year delay between Masimo’s provisional application (2008) and the filing of the derivative patent applications that resulted in the patents-in-suit was at the heart of a prosecution laches claim by Apple. The Federal Circuit is not even sure whether Apple preserved that argument, but disagrees at any rate.
Any other arguments by Apple are found to lack merit without further discussion in the opinion.