Masimo, Corp. v. Apple, Inc.
Patentability filed 30 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 12 Sep 2023, with US10702194B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10702194B1
- Application no.
- US16/829536
- Case no.
- 22-1973
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Jun 2022 – 12 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 439 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents
The present disclosure relates to noninvasive methods, devices, and systems for measuring various blood constituents or analytes, such as glucose. In an embodiment, a light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm. In an embodiment, the detector comprises a plurality of photodetectors arranged in a special geometry comprising one of a substantially linear substantially equal spaced geometry, a substantially linear substantially non-equal spaced geometry, and a substantially grid geometry.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 7 Jul 2020
- Earliest priority
- 4 Aug 2008
- Est. expiry
- 25 Aug 2028
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2020-01716 · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2020-01716 · Patentability · filed by Masimo Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- POEZE, JEROEN · LAMEGO, MARCELO · MERRITT, SEAN · DALVI, CRISTIANO · VO, HUNG · BRUINSMA, JOHANNES · LESMANA, FERDYAN · KIANI, MASSI JOE E. · OLSEN, GREG
- Classification
- A61B5/1455A61B5/145A61B5/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Examiner
- WINAKUR, ERIC F
Parties of record
Masimo, Corp.
- Core tech
- A61B5/1455A61B5/145A61B5/00
- Counsel
- Jarom D. Kesler
- Firm
- Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Walter K. Renner.
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jarom D. Kesler | Masimo, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Walter K. Renner. | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
Case 22-1973 · Fed. Cir. · closed 12 September 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1973?
22-1973 is a patent patentability brought by Masimo, Corp. against Apple, Inc., filed on 30 Jun 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 12 September 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1973?
US10702194B1 (“Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents”), assigned to MASIMO CORPORATION, currently inactive. The record also lists Multi-stream data collection system for noninvasive measurement of blood constituents.
How was case 22-1973 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
How long did case 22-1973 take?
439 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jun 2022 to closure on 12 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1973?
Jarom D. Kesler is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Masimo. Walter K. Renner. appears for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1973 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.