Masimo vs. Apple: Voluntary Dismissal in Health Monitoring Patent Appeal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Masimo Corp. v. Apple, Inc. |
| Case Number | 24-1635 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, District of Columbia |
| Duration | Apr 2024 – Feb 2026 696 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal – Each side bears its own costs |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Apple Watch (physiological monitoring features) |
Case Overview
In a closely watched appellate dispute between two heavyweight technology companies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit closed the books on Masimo Corp. v. Apple, Inc. (Case No. 24-1635) on February 26, 2026 — not through a judicial ruling on the merits, but via a joint voluntary dismissal agreed to by both parties. Filed on April 1, 2024, and resolved after 696 days, the case centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1, covering physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods — technology at the heart of the wearable health sensor market.
The case’s quiet resolution through stipulated dismissal, with each side bearing its own costs, reflects a broader pattern of strategic settlement in high-stakes wearable technology patent litigation.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A global leader in noninvasive patient monitoring technology, holding an extensive patent portfolio covering pulse oximetry, blood oxygen sensing, and related physiological measurement systems.
🛡️ Defendant
Leading consumer electronics company whose Apple Watch product line incorporates heart rate monitoring, blood oxygen (SpO2) sensing, and ECG functionality.
The Patent at Issue
This appellate case centered on **U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1** (Application No. 16/835,772), which covers physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods — broad subject matter encompassing sensor hardware, signal processing, and monitoring methodologies central to wearable health technology. Masimo has argued Apple implemented these innovations in Apple Watch without authorization.
- • US 10,687,745 B1 — Physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods
Developing health monitoring products?
Check if your wearable technology might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
The appeal was filed on **April 1, 2024** before the **U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit** in the District of Columbia. The case’s **verdict cause** is classified as **Patentability — Invalidity/Cancellation Action**, indicating the appeal arose from a challenge to patent validity. The Federal Circuit had issued a **stay** in the appeals prior to dismissal, which was formally lifted in the dismissal order entered on **February 26, 2026**.
Outcome
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) — the voluntary dismissal mechanism for appellate proceedings — upon the parties’ joint stipulation. The order specified that each side bears its own costs, a standard provision in mutually agreed dismissals that avoids awarding litigation cost recovery to either party. No damages award, no injunctive relief, and no merits ruling were recorded.
Key Legal Issues
The classification of this case under Invalidity/Cancellation Action within a patentability framework points to a dispute where Apple was likely challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,745 B1. The imposition and subsequent lifting of a stay is procedurally significant, suggesting this appeal was one thread in a larger, multi-forum litigation web between Masimo and Apple. The voluntary dismissal before any merits decision means the Federal Circuit rendered no opinion on patent validity or claim construction.
Filing a health monitoring patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims for physiological monitoring technology.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis: Health Monitoring
This case highlights critical IP risks in wearable health tech. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the extensive Masimo patent portfolio in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in health monitoring patents
- Understand litigation patterns in physiological monitoring
🔍 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
Physiological monitoring technologies (e.g., SpO2 sensing)
Extensive Patent Portfolio
By Masimo in wearable health tech
Design-Around Options
Potentially available with careful planning
✅ Key Takeaways from Masimo v. Apple
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Voluntary dismissal under FRCP 42(b) at the Federal Circuit level, without cost-shifting, typically reflects negotiated resolution — monitor for related licensing or settlement disclosures.
Search related case law →Multi-forum patent litigation (district court + ITC + PTAB + Federal Circuit) creates compounding pressure that can drive resolution even without merits rulings.
Explore precedents →For R&D Leaders
Physiological monitoring patent claims present significant FTO risk in wearable product development. Proactive claim mapping against Masimo’s patent estate is advisable.
Start FTO analysis for my product →The stay-then-dismiss procedural sequence is a signal of parallel proceeding interdependency, emphasizing the need for comprehensive IP strategy.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.