Masimo v. Apple (25-2095): Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. jointly agreed to dismiss Masimo’s Federal Circuit appeal in a patentability dispute over US10687743B1, covering physiological measurement devices, systems, and methods. The appeal was resolved in 96 days with no merits ruling and each side bearing its own costs.
Masimo and Apple Jointly Exit Federal Circuit Without Merits Ruling
Masimo Corp., a medical device company and holder of US10687743B1, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 11, 2025, challenging a patentability determination relating to its patent covering physiological measurement devices, systems, and methods. The appeal, docketed as case 25-2095, named Apple Inc. as the respondent — continuing a long-running IP dispute between the two companies over wearable health monitoring technology.
The appeal was terminated on December 16, 2025, when both parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court ordered the proceedings dismissed and specified that each side shall bear its own costs. Because the dismissal was agreed by both parties and the public record does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice, the preclusive effect of this dismissal cannot be confirmed from the available record alone.
The 96-day duration from filing to closure is notably short for a Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the parties reached an agreement — whether through settlement, licensing, or strategic withdrawal — relatively soon after the appeal was docketed. The absence of a cost award to either side is consistent with a negotiated resolution. What drove the agreement and whether the underlying patentability dispute has been resolved on commercial terms remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 96 days
96 days — faster than the typical Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle of 18–24 months
Voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit: what the order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): agreed dismissal with no merits ruling
Rule 42(b) allows parties to jointly dismiss an appeal by stipulation. The Federal Circuit’s order confirms the parties agreed to terminate the proceedings — meaning the appellate court made no finding on the patentability of US10687743B1. The underlying invalidity or cancellation determination that triggered the appeal therefore stands as the last merits ruling on record, unless separately vacated or addressed.
No appellate merits decisionWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) can, depending on the terms agreed, be with or without prejudice to refiling or re-raising arguments. The court order in this case does not specify either. This is a meaningful distinction: a with-prejudice dismissal would bar Masimo from re-appealing on the same grounds, whereas a without-prejudice dismissal preserves future options. IP professionals should not assume either outcome from the public record alone.
Prejudice status undisclosedMasimo exits appeal without a reversal or affirmance
By agreeing to dismiss, Masimo foregoes the possibility of the Federal Circuit reversing the adverse patentability ruling below. However, a voluntary exit — particularly one completed in under 100 days — may suggest a commercial or licensing arrangement has been reached off the record. Masimo retains its broader portfolio of physiological measurement patents and its ongoing enforcement history against Apple in other proceedings.
No reversal securedApple avoids a Federal Circuit ruling — and potential patent reinstatement
Apple, as respondent, benefits from the absence of a merits ruling: no Federal Circuit decision reinstates or strengthens the challenged patent claims at the appellate level. The each-side-bears-own-costs order avoids any cost exposure for Apple. However, if the dismissal reflects a broader settlement, Apple may have accepted commercial terms — such as licensing — that represent a real cost not visible in the public record.
No cost order; terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Masimo, Corp. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US10687743B1 covering physiological measurement technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — global technology company and maker of Apple Watch wearable health monitoring devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam B. Powell | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Christopher Claassen | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carol Pitzel Cruz | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel C. Kiang | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Irfan A. Lateef | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Perry D. Oldham | 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 | Benjamin Morris | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David P. Yin | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.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 order is terse by design: it confirms mutual agreement, invokes Rule 42(b) as the procedural mechanism, and resolves costs symmetrically. Critically, it contains no language affirming, reversing, or vacating the decision below — meaning no appellate precedent is created and no patentability finding is disturbed at the Federal Circuit level. The equal costs order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal, suggesting both parties accepted the outcome. The preclusive effect, if any, depends on terms not visible in the public record.
US10687743B1 — Physiological Measurement Devices, Systems, and Methods
US10687743B1 is a US utility patent granted to Masimo Corp. covering physiological measurement devices, systems, and methods. Filed under application number US16/791955, the patent sits at the intersection of non-invasive biometric sensing and wearable consumer health technology — the same technical domain as Apple Watch’s health monitoring capabilities. Masimo is one of the foundational IP holders in pulse oximetry and photoplethysmography-based monitoring, making this patent strategically significant beyond a single product dispute.
For competitors and product developers in the wearable health sector, US10687743B1 represents a live enforcement risk even following the dismissal of this appeal. The patent has been asserted against Apple — one of the largest consumer device manufacturers globally — which signals Masimo’s willingness to enforce it aggressively. Any company developing devices that measure blood oxygen, pulse rate, or related physiological parameters using optical or wearable sensor technology should assess exposure to this patent as part of ongoing IP risk management.
Should you run an FTO against US10687743B1?
If your product team is developing wearable devices, smartwatches, fitness trackers, or clinical monitoring tools that use optical sensors to measure physiological parameters — including SpO2, heart rate, perfusion index, or related biometrics — US10687743B1 should be on your FTO checklist. Masimo has demonstrated a consistent willingness to litigate this patent against a well-resourced defendant, which raises the risk profile for smaller and mid-size competitors who may receive less favourable terms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the current claim scope of US10687743B1 against your product architecture, identify whether any claims survived the underlying patentability proceedings, and surface related Masimo patents that may present adjacent risks. Given the unresolved public record on claim status post-dismissal, a current and comprehensive FTO analysis is advisable before product launch or the next funding round.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10687743B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in wearable health and physiological monitoring IP
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving physiological measurement patents and wearable health technology disputes, including Masimo’s broader enforcement campaign against Apple.
What this case signals for the wearable health technology IP landscape
A joint Federal Circuit exit in under 100 days typically signals more than procedural convenience — it suggests negotiation was already underway at filing.
Short Federal Circuit appeals often mask off-record commercial resolution
When both parties agree to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal within 96 days — and neither seeks a cost award — the pattern is consistent with a licensing deal or broader settlement reached outside the court record. IP teams monitoring Masimo-Apple disputes should treat this dismissal as a potential signal of changed commercial terms, not a clean legal victory for either side.
The patentability challenge record remains intact without appellate reversal
Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling, the patentability determination from the proceeding below — likely an IPR or ex parte reexamination outcome — stands as the last recorded legal finding on US10687743B1. Competitors assessing freedom-to-operate should factor in this unchallenged record, while recognising that a private resolution may affect how the patent is enforced going forward.
Masimo v Apple — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal (case 25-2095) was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of both parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on December 16, 2025 — 96 days after filing. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. No merits ruling on the patentability of US10687743B1 was issued by the Federal Circuit.
The patent at issue is US10687743B1, a Masimo Corp. patent covering physiological measurement devices, systems, and methods, filed under application number US16/791955. It relates to non-invasive biometric sensing technology relevant to wearable devices such as Apple Watch.
Not necessarily. A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is agreed by both parties and carries no merits finding. It does not constitute a legal victory for Apple. The equal costs order and the speed of the dismissal suggest a negotiated resolution, though the terms are not public. The underlying patentability determination from the lower proceeding stands as the last recorded merits ruling.
The enforceability of US10687743B1 depends on the outcome of the underlying patentability proceeding — likely an IPR or reexamination — that triggered this appeal. Because the Federal Circuit issued no ruling, it neither reinstated nor further invalidated any claims. Companies in the physiological monitoring space should conduct a current FTO analysis to determine which claims, if any, remain in force.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. It is a procedural mechanism — not a substantive ruling. The court’s order in 25-2095 confirms both Masimo and Apple agreed to end the appeal. No findings on patentability, infringement, or damages were made. The rule does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice unless the agreement or order states so explicitly, and the public order here is silent on that point.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.