Masimo v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 22-1895): Pulse Oximetry Patent Affirmed Unpatentable
Masimo Corporation’s appeal to the Federal Circuit failed to rescue US10470695B2 — a patent covering advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology — from an unpatentability ruling. The court affirmed the lower tribunal’s finding against Apple after 576 days of appellate proceedings, dealing a significant blow to Masimo’s IP position in the wearable health-sensing space.
Federal Circuit backs Apple in pulse oximetry patent invalidity fight
Masimo Corporation, a medical device company and pioneer in pulse oximetry technology, initiated appellate proceedings on June 13, 2022 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under Case No. 22-1895. The appeal centred on US10470695B2, a patent directed to advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology — a domain that sits at the intersection of Masimo’s core medical IP and Apple’s growing wearable health-monitoring product line.
The Federal Circuit issued its ruling on January 10, 2024, affirming the finding of unpatentability. The basis of termination — ‘Unpatentable’ — indicates that the claims of US10470695B2 were found to fail the statutory requirements for patentability, consistent with a post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding at the PTAB that Masimo then appealed. The affirmance means the patent’s claims, as challenged, stand cancelled and cannot be enforced.
The 576-day appellate timeline is consistent with a standard Federal Circuit patent appeal, suggesting no extraordinary procedural delays or expedited treatment. What the public record does not reveal is whether any parallel district court proceedings involving the same patent were stayed or affected by this ruling, nor whether Masimo pursued any claim amendment strategy before the PTAB prior to the appeal. The affirmance likely strengthens Apple’s freedom-to-operate position for its blood oxygen sensing features in Apple Watch.
Filing to settlement in 576 days
576 days — full appellate review period at the Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit affirms unpatentability of Masimo’s pulse oximetry claims
What ‘Affirmed — Unpatentable’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance of unpatentability by the Federal Circuit means the appellate court agreed with the lower tribunal — almost certainly the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — that the challenged claims of US10470695B2 do not meet patentability requirements. The claims are effectively cancelled. Masimo cannot enforce those claims in their challenged form, and no further appeals remain within the US federal court system short of a petition to the Supreme Court.
Patent cancelled on appealIPR or PGR likely preceded this Federal Circuit appeal
The ‘Invalidity/Cancellation Action’ cause and ‘Unpatentable’ termination basis are strongly consistent with an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) at the PTAB, from which Masimo appealed to the Federal Circuit. Under this pathway, Apple (or a related petitioner) would have successfully argued that the patent’s claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art. The Federal Circuit’s role was appellate review of the PTAB’s factual and legal findings.
PTAB → Federal Circuit pathwayPulse oximetry IP sits at the heart of the Masimo–Apple dispute
US10470695B2 covers advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology — the same functional domain as Apple Watch’s blood oxygen (SpO2) monitoring feature. Masimo has pursued an extensive IP campaign against Apple across multiple forums, asserting that Apple misappropriated its sensor technology. This Federal Circuit affirmance is one data point in that broader conflict, and its outcome suggests Apple has successfully neutralised at least one patent in Masimo’s portfolio through PTAB challenge.
Wearable SpO2 sensor IPAffirmance narrows Masimo’s enforceable claim set against Apple
Patent challengers like Apple frequently pursue parallel strategies: defend in district court while simultaneously seeking PTAB cancellation. A Federal Circuit affirmance of unpatentability removes the specific claims of US10470695B2 from Masimo’s enforcement arsenal. However, Masimo holds a large portfolio of pulse oximetry patents, and the broader litigation landscape between these two parties remains complex. This ruling does not resolve all pending disputes.
Portfolio enforcement impactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Masimo, Corp. | Company | Medical device innovator in pulse oximetry — holder of US10470695B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple Inc. — consumer electronics and wearable health technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremiah Helm | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John M. Grover | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph R. Re | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shannon Lam | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen C. Jensen | Attorney | Counsel for Masimo, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Ann Degnan | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael John Ballanco | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Courtney Counsel | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Walter Karl Renner Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The single-word verdict ‘AFFIRMED’ in a Federal Circuit appeal of an unpatentability finding carries precise legal weight: the appellate court found no reversible error in the PTAB’s factual determinations on prior art or its legal conclusions on patentability. For Masimo, the claims of US10470695B2 are cancelled — they cannot be asserted in pending or future litigation in their current form. For Apple, the ruling provides a clean defensive record on this specific patent, reinforcing its position in ongoing SpO2-related disputes.
US10470695B2 — Advanced Pulse Oximetry Sensor Technology
US10470695B2 (application number US16/226249) is a Masimo Corporation patent directed to advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology — the hardware and methodology used to non-invasively measure blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) using optical sensing. Masimo is widely credited with commercialising modern pulse oximetry and holds one of the deepest IP portfolios in the field. This patent sits within the family of innovations covering sensor design, signal acquisition, and noise reduction in wearable or clinical oximetry contexts.
Strategically, US10470695B2 represents the kind of foundational sensing IP that becomes commercially critical as consumer wearables incorporate clinical-grade health metrics. Apple’s integration of SpO2 measurement into Apple Watch brought it directly into Masimo’s core technology territory. The PTAB’s finding of unpatentability — affirmed by the Federal Circuit — suggests that prior art in the pulse oximetry domain was sufficiently dense to undermine the claims’ novelty or non-obviousness, a recurring challenge for broad sensor patents in mature medical device fields.
Should your wearable health product run an FTO against Masimo’s oximetry portfolio?
Any product team developing wearable devices that measure blood oxygen saturation — smartwatches, fitness trackers, clinical patches, or remote patient monitoring hardware — should treat Masimo’s surviving patent portfolio as a material FTO risk. While US10470695B2 has been found unpatentable, Masimo holds numerous related patents covering optical sensor configurations, signal processing algorithms, and wearable form factors. A single cancelled patent does not clear the field.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across Masimo’s full portfolio against specific product architectures — identifying which claims remain live, which have been narrowed through PTAB proceedings, and where design-around opportunities exist. Claim monitoring on Masimo’s active continuation filings is particularly valuable given the company’s history of aggressively prosecuting related applications in parallel with litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10470695B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related pulse oximetry and wearable health-sensor patent disputes
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this ruling signals for wearable health-sensing IP strategy
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance reinforces the PTAB as a potent defensive tool for large technology companies facing medical device IP claims.
PTAB remains Apple’s most effective weapon against Masimo’s patent portfolio
This affirmance confirms that inter partes review remains a viable and high-success pathway for Apple to neutralise Masimo’s patent assertions. Companies in the wearable health-tech space facing similar medical device IP claims should evaluate PTAB challenge as a front-line strategy, particularly where prior art in the pulse oximetry literature is dense.
Masimo’s enforcement position weakens but its portfolio remains substantial
The cancellation of US10470695B2 claims removes one enforcement lever, but Masimo’s patent estate covering SpO2 sensing, wearable form factors, and signal processing is extensive. Competitors and downstream manufacturers should not treat this ruling as a blanket clearance — targeted FTO analysis against the broader Masimo portfolio is still warranted.
Masimo v Apple — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US10470695B2, a Masimo patent covering advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology. The court issued its ruling on January 10, 2024, after Masimo appealed a PTAB finding. The patent’s claims were effectively cancelled, strengthening Apple’s defensive position in the ongoing IP dispute between the two companies.
US10470695B2 is a Masimo patent directed to advanced pulse oximetry sensor technology — the optical hardware and methods used to measure blood oxygen saturation non-invasively. This is directly relevant to Apple Watch’s SpO2 / blood oxygen feature. The patent’s cancellation improves Apple’s freedom-to-operate for this specific sensor implementation, though Masimo’s broader portfolio remains a potential risk.
When the Federal Circuit affirms a PTAB unpatentability finding, it means the appellate court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s analysis. The challenged patent claims are cancelled and unenforceable. The patent owner cannot re-assert those specific claims in litigation. The only further recourse would be a petition to the US Supreme Court, which is rarely granted in patent cases.
The Masimo–Apple IP dispute spans multiple forums including the ITC, US district courts, and PTAB proceedings. This Federal Circuit affirmance cancels one patent in Masimo’s enforcement arsenal, but the broader dispute — involving trade secret claims, additional patents, and an ITC import ban that was subject to a Presidential veto determination — remains complex and ongoing beyond this single ruling.
Masimo was represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, with attorneys including Joseph R. Re, Stephen C. Jensen, Jeremiah Helm, John M. Grover, and Shannon Lam. Apple was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, with attorneys including Lauren Ann Degnan, Michael John Ballanco, Robert Courtney Counsel, and Walter Karl Renner Esq.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.