A California federal judge has officially denied Apple Inc.’s motion to overturn a $634 million jury verdict, marking a significant setback for the tech giant in its multi-year legal confrontation with medical technology firm Masimo Corporation. U.S. District Judge James V. Selna rejected Apple’s requests for a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, effectively upholding a November 2025 jury finding that the Apple Watch’s heart-rate monitoring and notification features infringed upon Masimo’s patented pulse oximetry technology. This decision solidifies one of the largest patent-related financial penalties ever levied against Apple and underscores the intensifying scrutiny over how consumer electronics manufacturers integrate specialized medical monitoring capabilities into mass-market wearable devices.
The ruling comes at a critical juncture for Apple, which has spent the better part of the last decade positioning the Apple Watch as a vital health and wellness tool. Judge Selna’s decision specifically addressed Apple’s challenge to the court’s interpretation of a "patient monitor," a key term within Masimo’s patent. Apple had argued that the term should be restricted to professional-grade, stationary medical equipment used in clinical settings. However, the court maintained that the broader, everyday application of the term could reasonably encompass a sophisticated consumer wearable like the Apple Watch, which provides continuous monitoring of physiological data.
The Genesis of the Dispute: A Decade of Legal Friction
The legal battle between Apple and Masimo is rooted in events that began more than ten years ago. Masimo, a company headquartered in Irvine, California, is renowned for its non-invasive patient monitoring technologies, particularly its Signal Extraction Technology (SET), which allows for accurate pulse oximetry readings even during patient movement or low perfusion. According to court filings, Apple reached out to Masimo in 2013 to discuss a potential partnership and the integration of Masimo’s technology into future Apple products.
However, these discussions did not result in a collaboration. Instead, Masimo alleges that Apple used the meetings to identify key talent within the company. Shortly thereafter, Apple hired several high-level Masimo executives and engineers, including Masimo’s Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Technology Officer of Cercacor, a Masimo spinoff. By the time the Apple Watch launched in 2015, Masimo claimed that Apple had misappropriated trade secrets to develop its own health sensors. The formal legal proceedings began in early 2020 when Masimo filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Apple had infringed on ten of its patents and stolen trade secrets related to the use of light sensors to measure blood oxygen levels.
The ITC Ruling and the U.S. Import Ban
While the California patent lawsuit proceeded through the federal court system, a parallel battle unfolded before the International Trade Commission (ITC). In 2023, the ITC ruled that Apple had indeed infringed on Masimo’s patents regarding light-based pulse oximetry. This ruling led to a high-profile U.S. import ban on the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in late 2023.
The ban forced Apple to briefly halt sales of its flagship wearables during the busy holiday shopping season. Although a temporary stay was granted, the ban was eventually reinstated, prompting Apple to take the drastic step of disabling the blood oxygen monitoring feature on all new watches sold in the United States. To circumvent the ban while maintaining the hardware’s integrity, Apple introduced a software-based redesign in 2025. This redesign shifted the processing of sensor data from the watch itself to the paired iPhone, displaying results within the Health app rather than on the device’s screen. While this allowed Apple to resume sales, Masimo has continued to challenge the legality of this workaround, filing additional complaints with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Analysis of the $634 Million Verdict
The $634 million award, which Apple sought to toss out this week, stems from a separate portion of the California litigation focusing on heart-rate monitoring and notification features. In November 2025, a jury concluded that these features infringed on a specific Masimo patent that Apple had failed to invalidate. Apple’s defense centered on the argument that the technology in question was "historic" and that the patent had expired in 2022. Apple further contended that Masimo, as a medical device manufacturer that does not primarily sell to consumers, was using the legal system to extract "rent" from a successful consumer product.
In his recent ruling, Judge Selna dismissed these arguments, alongside Apple’s claim that the jury instructions were flawed. The judge also upheld his previous decision to exclude certain expert testimony from Apple’s side, finding that the exclusion did not prejudice the trial’s outcome. By refusing to grant a new trial, the court has signaled that the jury’s assessment of damages and infringement was legally sound based on the evidence presented.
Financial and Market Implications for Apple
For a company with a market capitalization exceeding $3 trillion, a $634 million penalty is not a threat to solvency, but it represents a significant blow to the profitability of its "Wearables, Home, and Accessories" segment. This division, which includes the Apple Watch, AirPods, and HomePod, generates approximately $40 billion in annual revenue. The ongoing legal fees, combined with the potential for additional damages and the loss of key features in the U.S. market, create a persistent headwind for the Apple Watch product line.
Market analysts suggest that this ruling may embolden other medical technology companies to pursue litigation against consumer tech giants. As companies like Samsung, Google (via Fitbit), and Oura expand their health-tracking capabilities, the boundary between "general wellness" and "regulated medical device" continues to blur. The Masimo case serves as a landmark precedent, suggesting that consumer electronics companies cannot simply label a device as "non-medical" to bypass patent protections held by traditional medical device firms.
Official Statements and Future Legal Recourse
Following the judge’s refusal to overturn the verdict, Apple reiterated its intent to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In an official statement, Apple characterized Masimo’s legal strategy as an attempt to stifle competition. "Masimo is a medical device company that does not sell any products to consumers. Over the past six years they have sued Apple in multiple courts and asserted over 25 patents, the majority of which have been found to be invalid," an Apple spokesperson stated. "The single patent in this case expired in 2022 and is specific to historic patient monitoring technology from decades ago. We plan to appeal."
Conversely, Masimo has framed the victory as a win for innovation and intellectual property rights. Masimo CEO Joe Kiani has been a vocal critic of Apple’s business practices, often referring to the tech giant’s "poaching" of employees as a calculated move to bypass the research and development costs that Masimo spent decades funding. Masimo maintains that the $634 million verdict is a necessary step in holding large corporations accountable for the unauthorized use of specialized technology.
Chronology of Key Events
- 2013: Apple and Masimo executives meet to discuss potential sensor integration. Apple begins hiring Masimo staff shortly thereafter.
- January 2020: Masimo files its initial lawsuit against Apple in California, alleging trade secret theft and patent infringement.
- January 2023: An ITC judge rules that Apple infringed on one of Masimo’s pulse oximetry patents.
- October 2023: The ITC issues a "limited exclusion order," banning the import of Apple Watches with blood oxygen features into the U.S.
- December 2023: Apple briefly pauses sales of Series 9 and Ultra 2 models; the Biden administration declines to veto the ITC ban.
- January 2024: Apple begins selling modified watches in the U.S. with the blood oxygen feature disabled via software.
- November 2025: A California jury awards Masimo $634 million in damages for infringement of heart-rate monitoring patents.
- July 2026: Judge James V. Selna denies Apple’s motion to overturn the $634 million verdict, clearing the way for an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Broader Impact on the Wearables Industry
The persistence of the Apple-Masimo conflict highlights the regulatory and legal minefield that consumer tech companies must navigate as they move into the healthcare space. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly been involved in clearing features like ECG (electrocardiogram) and AFib (atrial fibrillation) detection for over-the-counter use. However, patent law operates independently of FDA clearance. Even if a feature is deemed safe for consumers, it may still infringe on technical methodologies patented by medical specialists.
As Apple prepares its appeal, the industry will be watching closely. If the $634 million verdict is upheld by the Federal Circuit, it may force a shift in how tech companies approach the "acqui-hire" model of talent acquisition and how they draft their own patent filings. For now, the Apple Watch remains in a compromised state in its largest market, missing a headline feature that was once a primary selling point, while its manufacturer faces a massive financial liability that continues to grow with each judicial setback.
