Masimo v. Apple (22-1972): Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Blood-Monitoring Patent
Masimo Corp. appealed an invalidity ruling on US10624564B1 — a patent covering multi-stream noninvasive blood constituent measurement — against Apple, Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding in a 439-day appeal, leaving the patent cancelled and Apple's position intact.
Federal Circuit closes the door on Masimo's blood-monitoring patent claim
Masimo Corp., a medical device company and holder of US10624564B1 covering a multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents, appealed a patentability ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Apple, Inc. The appeal, docketed as Case No. 22-1972 in the District of Columbia, was filed on 30 June 2022 and closed on 12 September 2023.
The Federal Circuit issued a one-line judgment — 'AFFIRMED' — upholding the lower tribunal's finding of unpatentability. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable,' confirming that the cancellation of US10624564B1 survives appellate scrutiny. The specific reasoning behind the affirmance is not detailed in the available record beyond the judgment order itself.
The 439-day duration is consistent with a contested Federal Circuit appeal involving substantive patentability arguments. What drove the outcome — whether obviousness, anticipation, or another ground — is not disclosed in the available public record. For Masimo, the affirmance extinguishes this patent as an enforceable asset in the ongoing competitive dispute with Apple in the health-monitoring technology space.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Unpatentable in 439 days
439 days from filing to Federal Circuit judgment — typical Federal Circuit appeals resolve in 12–18 months
US10624564B1 — Multi-stream noninvasive blood constituent measurement system
US10624564B1 has been found unpatentable and that finding has been affirmed by the Federal Circuit — it is no longer enforceable. However, R&D teams and product counsel working on noninvasive blood-analyte sensors, pulse oximetry wearables, or multi-stream physiological data systems should audit the surrounding Masimo portfolio. Related continuations, divisionals, or family members may cover overlapping technical ground and remain active threats.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's single-word judgment — 'AFFIRMED' — confirms that the panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's unpatentability determination regarding US10624564B1. This terse affirmance is procedurally unremarkable at the Federal Circuit but carries significant commercial weight: it extinguishes the patent, closes Masimo's appellate path on this claim, and consolidates Apple's freedom to operate in the multi-stream noninvasive blood constituent measurement space.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
What 'AFFIRMED' means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the appellate panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's unpatentability determination. The standard of review for factual findings (e.g., anticipation or obviousness) is substantial evidence; for legal conclusions, de novo. The lower decision stands in full, and no further relief was granted to Masimo at this level.
No reversible error foundMasimo loses US10624564B1 as an enforceable asset
The affirmance confirms that US10624564B1 is unpatentable, stripping Masimo of this patent's enforceability. Masimo cannot use this specific patent to seek damages or injunctions against Apple or any other party. Any licensing programme built around this patent is similarly impacted. Masimo's appellate options at the Federal Circuit are now exhausted for this patent.
Patent cancelled — unenforceableApple secures a clear path on this patent
Apple successfully defended the unpatentability finding at the Federal Circuit, eliminating US10624564B1 as a litigation risk for its noninvasive blood-monitoring technology, including products such as the Apple Watch. The affirmance raises the bar for Masimo to challenge Apple using this specific patent family going forward and may reduce the litigation leverage Masimo holds in the broader dispute between the parties.
Apple's FTO strengthenedWearable health monitoring: IP landscape shifts toward Apple
The cancellation and affirmance of a core Masimo blood-constituent measurement patent suggests that the IP boundaries in the noninvasive physiological monitoring space remain actively contested. Competitors and product teams developing pulse oximetry or multi-wavelength blood-analyte sensors should note that this patent no longer poses an infringement risk, but the broader Masimo portfolio warrants continued monitoring for related claims.
Reduced IP risk for wearable health techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Masimo, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jarom D. Kesler | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremiah Helm | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph R. Re | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen C. Jensen | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen W. Larson | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Walter K. Renner. | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in noninvasive physiological monitoring IP
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence for the noninvasive blood-monitoring space, surfaced from the Masimo v. Apple Federal Circuit appeal.
Masimo's noninvasive monitoring portfolio beyond US10624564B1
Masimo holds an extensive portfolio in pulse oximetry, multi-wavelength sensing, and physiological signal processing. With US10624564B1 cancelled, understanding the active continuation and divisional landscape is critical for any company operating in noninvasive blood-analyte measurement. Portfolio depth in this area suggests continued assertion risk from adjacent claims.
Masimo portfolio surveillanceFiling trends in multi-stream noninvasive blood-analyte sensing
Multi-stream and multi-wavelength approaches to noninvasive physiological measurement are among the most actively filed areas in wearable health IP. Patent filings from medical device firms, consumer electronics companies, and semiconductor players are converging on overlapping technical approaches — signal conditioning, sensor fusion, and motion artefact rejection — creating a densely contested IP landscape.
Active filing area — monitor closelyApple's patent position in health-monitoring sensor technology
Apple's successful post-grant challenge of US10624564B1, affirmed at the Federal Circuit, reflects a broader strategy of building defensive IP depth in wearable health monitoring while contesting third-party patents. Tracking Apple's own filing activity in noninvasive sensing, photoplethysmography, and blood-analyte detection reveals the technical directions Apple is investing in and defending.
Apple health sensor IP activityAdjacent R&D gaps in continuous noninvasive analyte monitoring
The cancellation of US10624564B1 may expose white space in multi-stream data architectures for noninvasive monitoring — particularly in continuous glucose estimation, haemoglobin, and SpO2 fusion algorithms where claim density is lower. R&D teams seeking to file in this space should map existing claim coverage before committing to technical architectures.
IP white space — analyte monitoringSimilar Federal Circuit appeals in noninvasive physiological monitoring patent disputes
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving noninvasive blood-monitoring and wearable health sensor patents — cases with comparable patentability challenges and party profiles to Masimo v. Apple.
What this case signals for the wearable health-monitoring IP landscape
The Federal Circuit's affirmance reshapes the patent boundary between Masimo and Apple in noninvasive blood-monitoring technology.
US10624564B1 is no longer an active infringement risk
Product teams developing noninvasive blood-constituent measurement systems can remove US10624564B1 from active FTO watch lists. The Federal Circuit's affirmance of unpatentability is a final disposition at this level — the patent cannot be enforced by Masimo against any party.
Masimo's broader portfolio remains a live risk for Apple and competitors
One cancelled patent does not resolve the wider Masimo–Apple IP conflict. Masimo holds a substantial portfolio in pulse oximetry and physiological monitoring. Competitors should run ongoing portfolio surveillance to identify related claims that may cover similar multi-stream or noninvasive measurement architectures.
Masimo v Apple — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US10624564B1 in Case No. 22-1972. The judgment, entered 12 September 2023, upheld the lower tribunal's cancellation finding. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable.' No further detail on the grounds of affirmance is available in the public record.
US10624564B1 covers a multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents — a technology directly relevant to wearable health sensors such as those featured in the Apple Watch. Masimo, a medical device company specialising in noninvasive physiological monitoring, challenged Apple's use of related technology, and Apple pursued post-grant cancellation proceedings that Masimo appealed.
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the panel found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's determination. For factual findings such as anticipation or obviousness, the standard is substantial evidence; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The lower decision stands in full, and the appellant — here Masimo — receives no relief at this level.
The affirmance is specific to US10624564B1. It does not directly invalidate other Masimo patents. However, Masimo holds a substantial portfolio in pulse oximetry and physiological monitoring, and related continuation or divisional applications may cover overlapping technical ground. Those patents remain subject to separate validity analysis.
Masimo was represented by Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, with attorneys including Joseph R. Re, Stephen C. Jensen, Jarom D. Kesler, Jeremiah Helm, and Stephen W. Larson. Apple was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, with Walter K. Renner listed as counsel. No judge is identified in the available record for this appeal.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.