Masimo v. Apple: Physiological Monitoring Patent Appeal Dismissed in Landmark Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Masimo Corporation v. Apple, Inc. |
| Case Number | 24-1636 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from District of Columbia |
| Duration | Apr 2024 – Feb 2026 1 year 10 months |
| Outcome | Voluntarily Dismissed — Non-Merits |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Apple Watch (physiological monitoring features) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A global leader in noninvasive patient monitoring technology, holding an extensive portfolio of patents covering pulse oximetry, continuous health monitoring, and wearable biosensing systems.
🛡️ Defendant
A technology giant known for its Apple Watch platform, which incorporates blood oxygen and heart rate monitoring features — capabilities that have drawn scrutiny from Masimo.
The Patent at Issue
This appeal centered on **U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1** (Application No. 16/835,772), which covers physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods. The ‘745 patent reflects Masimo’s core technical competency in noninvasive sensor-based health monitoring — claims that, if upheld and enforced, carry significant commercial weight given Apple Watch’s global market penetration.
- • US 10,687,745 B1 — Physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods
Developing a similar physiological monitoring product?
Check if your wearable device might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued the following order upon receiving the joint stipulation:
*”(1) The stay is lifted, and the appeals are dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.”*
This dismissal is **non-merits-based** — the court did not rule on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. Each side bearing its own costs is standard under Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissals and signals no judicial finding of frivolousness or misconduct. Notably, a **stay had been in effect** prior to dismissal, suggesting parallel proceedings (likely PTAB or ITC) may have been influencing the appellate posture and timeline.
No damages award was issued. No injunctive relief was granted or denied by this court.
Key Legal Issues
The formal verdict cause — **Invalidity/Cancellation Action** — indicates this appeal centered on challenges to the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1. The existence of a **stay prior to dismissal** is analytically significant. Federal Circuit stays in patent cases often reflect active parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR or PGR), ITC exclusion order proceedings, or settlement negotiations that render appellate resolution premature or unnecessary. The lifting of the stay immediately upon dismissal suggests the parties resolved their broader dispute — or reached a strategic equilibrium — that made continued appellate litigation unnecessary.
For **physiological monitoring patent litigation**, this dismissal preserves the status quo on the ‘745 patent’s validity — no Federal Circuit ruling invalidates or confirms the claims. This creates continued uncertainty for competitors in the wearable health monitoring space who might have sought clarity from a merits ruling.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in physiological monitoring tech. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in physiological monitoring patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Continuous biometric monitoring (SpO2, HR)
1 Patent at Issue
Focus on US 10,687,745 B1
FTO Uncertainty Remains
No definitive validity ruling
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) with mutual cost-bearing is a tactically neutral exit that preserves flexibility for both parties.
Search related case law →The prior stay suggests active parallel proceedings (likely PTAB or ITC) significantly influenced appellate strategy.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1 (Application No. 16/835,772), covering physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods.
Both parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court lifted a pre-existing stay and dismissed the appeals, with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
The dismissal leaves the ‘745 patent’s validity unresolved at the Federal Circuit level, meaning competitors and product developers in the wearable health tech space cannot rely on this case for FTO certainty.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 24-1636 docket information
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1
- World Intellectual Property Organization — Patent Information
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.