Masimo v. Apple: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 96 Days
Masimo Corporation and Apple Inc. jointly agreed to dismiss their Federal Circuit appeal — Case 25-2096 — concerning US10722159B2, a patent covering physiological monitoring devices and systems. The proceedings ended after just 96 days under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
A rare agreed exit: Masimo and Apple pull Federal Circuit appeal
Masimo Corporation filed appeal no. 25-2096 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 11 September 2025, challenging a patentability determination relating to US10722159B2 — a patent directed to physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods. Apple Inc., represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, stood as respondent. The underlying dispute concerned an invalidity or cancellation action targeting the Masimo patent.
The appeal was terminated on 16 December 2025 — just 96 days after filing — when both parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The court ordered dismissal on those agreed terms and specified that each side would bear its own costs. Because the dismissal was voluntary and the public record does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice, the precise preclusive effect on future proceedings remains unclear from the available record.
The 96-day duration is notably short even by Federal Circuit standards, suggesting the parties reached a resolution — whether commercial, licensing, or otherwise — shortly after the appeal was docketed. The equal costs order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession by either side. What drove the agreement and whether any licensing terms were exchanged is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 96 days
96-day appeal duration — notably short for Federal Circuit patentability proceedings
Voluntarily dismissed by agreement: what the exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): parties dismiss by agreement
Rule 42(b) allows parties to a Federal Circuit appeal to voluntarily dismiss the proceedings by filing a signed agreement. Because dismissal was stipulated — not ordered on the merits — the Federal Circuit issued no substantive ruling on patentability. The underlying invalidity or cancellation dispute is left legally unresolved at the appellate level by this order alone.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal can be with prejudice — permanently barring re-filing — or without prejudice, preserving the right to re-litigate. The order in 25-2096 states only that proceedings are dismissed under Rule 42(b); it does not specify either qualifier. Practitioners should treat the preclusive effect as unresolved absent further information, and should not assume either outcome from the available public record.
Preclusive effect uncertainMasimo’s patent exits appeal without an adverse ruling
Because no merits decision was issued, US10722159B2 is not formally invalidated or cancelled by this appeal. Masimo’s patent survives this particular proceeding intact. However, the absence of a ruling also means the patent’s validity has not been affirmatively confirmed at the Federal Circuit level through this case, leaving it potentially subject to future challenge.
Patent status unchangedApple exits without a validity win — or loss — on record
Apple’s agreement to dismiss means it did not secure a Federal Circuit ruling invalidating the Masimo patent through this appeal. At the same time, Apple incurs no adverse appellate judgment and bears only its own costs. The equal cost order and joint nature of the dismissal are consistent with a negotiated resolution, though no terms are publicly disclosed.
No adverse judgmentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Masimo, Corp. | Company | Medical-grade physiological monitoring technology company — holder of US10722159B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — global consumer electronics company; respondent in patentability appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel C. Kiang | 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 ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s language — ‘proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)’ — is a purely procedural disposition. It reflects mutual consent, not a finding on the merits of the patentability dispute. The equal costs directive reinforces that neither party extracted a concession from the other in terms the court was asked to record. Practitioners should note that Rule 42(b) dismissals do not carry the same preclusive weight as a Federal Circuit affirmance or reversal, and the absence of a with/without prejudice designation leaves the downstream effect on re-litigation ambiguous.
US10722159B2 — Physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods
US10722159B2, filed under application number US16/791963, protects physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods. This category of technology encompasses hardware and software architectures enabling continuous or on-demand measurement of physiological parameters — typically including blood oxygen saturation, pulse rate, and related biometrics — using optical or other sensing modalities. Masimo is a recognised innovator in medical-grade pulse oximetry and non-invasive monitoring, and this patent sits within a portfolio with significant clinical and consumer wearable relevance.
The patent’s involvement in a Federal Circuit patentability appeal brought by Apple — a company that has integrated physiological monitoring sensors into Apple Watch — signals the competitive sensitivity of this technology area. A patent covering monitoring devices and methods at the systems level can present broad claim coverage that affects not only dedicated medical devices but also consumer wearables incorporating similar sensing capabilities. The patent’s survival through this proceeding without cancellation sustains its relevance as an enforcement and licensing asset in the growing wearable health tech market.
Should you run an FTO against US10722159B2?
Any team developing or commercialising physiological monitoring devices — including wearables incorporating pulse oximetry, photoplethysmography, or related biosensing — should assess exposure to US10722159B2. The patent has survived a Federal Circuit invalidity challenge without cancellation, and Masimo has demonstrated enforcement willingness against a major defendant. This is particularly relevant for product teams building health monitoring features into consumer electronics, medical devices, or connected health platforms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope against product architectures, identify prior art that was not raised in the Federal Circuit proceedings, and benchmark against Masimo’s broader patent portfolio. Running a targeted FTO now — before product launch — is materially less costly than responding to an enforcement action after commercialisation. Eureka surfaces related Masimo filings and claim family trees to support a comprehensive clearance analysis.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10722159B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Federal Circuit patent appeals in physiological monitoring and wearable health tech
Cases involving patentability challenges to physiological monitoring patents at the Federal Circuit offer the closest procedural and technical parallels to Masimo v. Apple, No. 25-2096.
What this case signals for the physiological monitoring IP landscape
A rapid agreed dismissal in a high-stakes Masimo-Apple Federal Circuit appeal warrants close attention from IP professionals in the wearable health tech sector.
Short appeal duration signals likely out-of-court resolution
A 96-day Federal Circuit appeal ending in joint dismissal — with each party bearing its own costs — strongly suggests the parties negotiated an agreement during or shortly after docketing. IP teams monitoring the Masimo-Apple patent dispute should assess whether a broader licensing arrangement or settlement has altered the competitive dynamics in physiological monitoring.
US10722159B2 remains a live enforcement risk despite this exit
The absence of a merits ruling means US10722159B2 has not been invalidated at the Federal Circuit through this proceeding. Companies developing wearable physiological monitoring devices, systems, or methods should treat this patent as enforceable and consider a freedom-to-operate analysis before commercialising overlapping technology.
Masimo v Apple — key questions answered
Case 25-2096 was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of both parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 16 December 2025, 96 days after filing. No merits ruling on the patentability of US10722159B2 was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
No. The Federal Circuit issued no substantive ruling on the validity of US10722159B2 in this appeal. The case was dismissed by joint agreement under Rule 42(b), leaving the patent’s validity status unchanged from what it was prior to the appeal.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal reflects the parties’ agreement to end the appeal without a merits decision. The public order in 25-2096 does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, meaning the preclusive effect on future proceedings is not definitively established by the order alone. Future invalidity challenges may not be foreclosed.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the agreed dismissal. The 96-day duration and equal costs order are consistent with the parties reaching a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing or settlement agreement — shortly after the appeal was docketed. No terms have been publicly filed.
Masimo was represented by Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, with Daniel C. Kiang listed as counsel. Apple was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, with Walter K. Renner listed as counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.