Masimo v. Apple (25-1216): Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 99 Days
Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. filed a Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal at the Federal Circuit, ending Appeal No. 25-1216 — one of two companion appeals arising from a wearable electronic device patent infringement action over US10627783B2. Each side bears its own costs, while the closely related Appeal No. 25-1217 remains pending.
One of two Federal Circuit appeals dropped as companion case proceeds
Masimo Corp. filed Appeal No. 25-1216 at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 November 2024, asserting infringement of US10627783B2 — a patent covering wearable electronic device technology — against Apple Inc. The appeal was one of at least two companion proceedings, running alongside Appeal No. 25-1217 before the same court. Knobbe Martens represented Masimo; WilmerHale represented Apple.
On 5 March 2025 — just 99 days after filing — the parties filed Federal Circuit Form 18, a Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1). The court accepted the stipulation and ordered the appeal dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. The dismissal order simultaneously set Apple’s opening brief in Appeal No. 25-1217 as due within 60 days, confirming that companion proceeding remains active.
The speed of this dismissal — under 100 days — is consistent with a deliberate strategic consolidation rather than a substantive settlement or merits concession. Parties occasionally dismiss one of two parallel appeals to streamline briefing, eliminate duplicative issues, or reflect a narrowing of the claim set being pursued. The public record does not disclose whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, nor whether any commercial terms accompanied it. The continued activity in Appeal No. 25-1217 suggests the underlying dispute over wearable device technology remains live.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 99 days
99 days — shorter than the median Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle, suggesting a negotiated resolution or strategic case narrowing
Voluntarily dismissed: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRAP 42(b)(1): Voluntary dismissal by joint stipulation at the Federal Circuit
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1) allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed stipulation. No court approval of the merits is required — the court accepts the stipulation and issues an order of dismissal. This mechanism carries no finding on patentability, infringement, or validity. The public record here is silent on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, meaning the preclusive effect — if any — is not publicly determinable from this order alone.
Procedural — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The record does not say
Voluntary dismissals can be entered with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing of the same claims; one without prejudice preserves the right to refile. Federal Circuit FRAP 42(b)(1) stipulations do not require the parties to specify prejudice status on the face of the order, and this order does not do so. Any party seeking to rely on or contest preclusion would need to examine the underlying stipulation text. IP professionals should not assume either outcome from this order alone.
Prejudice status: unconfirmedCompanion appeal 25-1217 continues — this dismissal likely reflects case consolidation
The simultaneous filing of a brief-schedule order for Appeal No. 25-1217 strongly suggests Masimo elected to concentrate its Federal Circuit challenge in the surviving appeal rather than pursue two parallel tracks. This is a recognised appellate strategy: eliminating one appeal can simplify briefing, avoid inconsistent panel rulings, and reduce costs. It does not signal capitulation by either party on the substantive wearable device patent claims still at issue in 25-1217.
Appeal 25-1217 remains activeUS10627783B2 enforcement posture remains unresolved pending 25-1217
The dismissal of 25-1216 does not extinguish Masimo’s enforcement position on US10627783B2. The patent’s scope and Apple’s alleged infringement through wearable electronic devices remain subject to adjudication in the companion appeal. Companies developing optical physiological monitoring features in wearables — including smartwatches and fitness trackers — should continue to monitor 25-1217 as the operative proceeding and should not treat this dismissal as a clearance signal for the underlying technology.
Monitor Appeal 25-1217Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Masimo, Corp. | Company | Medical-grade wearable technology company — holder of US10627783B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — consumer electronics manufacturer; defendant in wearable device patent disputeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward M. Cannon | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Irfan A. Lateef | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip Mark Nelson | 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 | Mark D. Selwyn | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Gregory Sprankling | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts the FRAP 42(b)(1) joint stipulation without any merits analysis — consistent with the purely procedural nature of a voluntary dismissal at the appellate level. The explicit direction that each side bear its own costs signals a clean procedural exit rather than a contested resolution. Notably, the order’s immediate attention to Apple’s briefing schedule in Appeal No. 25-1217 confirms the Federal Circuit treats the companion appeal as the operative proceeding. No inference of validity or non-infringement of US10627783B2 should be drawn from this order.
US10627783B2 — Wearable Electronic Device Optical Monitoring Technology
US10627783B2, filed under application number US15/261917, covers wearable electronic device technology with a particular focus on optical physiological monitoring — the capability to measure health parameters such as blood oxygen saturation through the skin using light-based sensors. Masimo, a company with deep roots in clinical-grade pulse oximetry and patient monitoring, has built a substantial patent portfolio around non-invasive sensing technology. This patent represents an extension of that expertise into consumer-facing wearable form factors.
The commercial significance of US10627783B2 is amplified by the scale of Apple’s wearable device business. Apple Watch’s health sensing features — including blood oxygen monitoring — sit squarely within the technical domain this patent addresses. A finding of infringement in Appeal No. 25-1217 could have material consequences for Apple’s product design and Masimo’s licensing position. For competitors developing optical health sensing in wearables, this patent’s enforceability is a live question that shapes freedom-to-operate analysis across the entire sector.
Should you run an FTO against US10627783B2?
Any company integrating optical physiological monitoring — including pulse oximetry, blood oxygen sensing, or photoplethysmography — into a wearable electronic device should treat US10627783B2 as a priority FTO reference. With the Federal Circuit yet to rule on infringement scope in the companion appeal, the enforceability posture of this patent is unresolved. Product teams at smartwatch, fitness tracker, and medical wearable companies face real exposure if they launch without a formal clearance analysis against this and related Masimo patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope against their own product architecture in real time. You can identify independent and dependent claims in US10627783B2, cross-reference cited prior art, and surface related Masimo patents that may form a broader enforcement cluster — all before the Federal Circuit issues a decision in Appeal No. 25-1217 that could change the risk calculus overnight.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10627783B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit wearable device patent infringement appeals
Federal Circuit appeals involving optical physiological monitoring and wearable device patents — mapped alongside Masimo v. Apple to surface comparable claim scope and outcome patterns.
What this case signals for the wearable health-tech IP landscape
The Masimo–Apple wearable patent dispute spans multiple Federal Circuit appeals. Case 25-1216’s dismissal is a procedural move, not an endpoint.
Voluntary dismissal of one appeal does not clear the patent — monitor 25-1217
US10627783B2 remains in active dispute through Appeal No. 25-1217. Any product team or competitor treating the 25-1216 dismissal as a freedom-to-operate signal would be drawing the wrong conclusion. The substantive question of Apple’s liability under this wearable device patent is still before the Federal Circuit.
Dual-appeal strategy: when parties split and then consolidate Federal Circuit tracks
Filing companion appeals and later dismissing one is a legitimate appellate tactic. It can reflect issue narrowing after lower-court rulings, desire to avoid inconsistent panel decisions, or a negotiated scope reduction. IP litigators managing multi-appeal portfolios should track both the dismissed and surviving dockets for ripple effects on claim scope.
Masimo v Apple — key questions answered
Appeal No. 25-1216 was voluntarily dismissed on 5 March 2025 via a Joint Stipulation filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1). The dismissal was ordered 99 days after filing. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued on patent US10627783B2 or Apple’s alleged infringement of it.
No. The voluntary dismissal of Appeal 25-1216 carries no merits finding on infringement or validity of US10627783B2. The companion proceeding, Appeal No. 25-1217, remains active at the Federal Circuit and represents the live dispute between Masimo and Apple over wearable device patent rights.
The court’s order does not specify. FRAP 42(b)(1) joint stipulations do not require parties to state prejudice status on the face of the order. The public record as reflected in the dismissal order is silent on this point, and the underlying stipulation document would need to be reviewed to determine any preclusive effect.
US10627783B2, filed under application US15/261917, covers wearable electronic device technology relating to optical physiological monitoring — the light-based sensing of health parameters such as blood oxygen levels. Masimo is a pioneer in clinical pulse oximetry. The patent’s scope is directly relevant to Apple Watch health sensing features, making it commercially significant for the consumer wearables sector.
Appeal No. 25-1217 is a companion Federal Circuit appeal filed by Apple Inc. in the same underlying Masimo wearable patent dispute. When Appeal 25-1216 was dismissed, the court simultaneously set Apple’s opening brief schedule in 25-1217, confirming it as the operative proceeding. The two appeals appear to have arisen from related lower-court proceedings involving overlapping patent and product issues.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.