Why did Apple receive $250 in its patent case against Masimo?

A federal jury ruled in favor of Apple determining that previous versions of Masimo smartwatches violated two of Apple Design patents. The case, part of a broader intellectual property dispute between the tech giant and the health monitoring company, centered on Masimo’s W1 and Freedom models. The jury awarded Apple just $250 in damages, the legal minimum for infringement in the United States. Despite this minimal financial compensation, Apple’s legal team argued that the primary goal of the lawsuit was to obtain an injunction against sales of Masimo’s smartwatches. In a significant twist, the jury found that Masimo’s current smartwatch models did not infringe Apple’s patents, which Apple had claimed were copied. Masimo responded positively to the jury’s verdict, noting that it favored them on “almost every issue” and emphasizing that the ruling concerned only a “discontinued module and charger.” Masimo’s statement underlined that the jury’s decision was a victory for them, particularly in regards to the injunction against its current products, which Apple sought. Apple, for its part, was pleased with the jury’s ruling, stating that it would help protect innovations developed for its customers. The current conflict is rooted in Masimo’s accusations that Apple stole its employees and misappropriated its pulse oximetry technology during discussions about a potential partnership. Last year, Masimo managed to convince the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to block imports of Apple’s Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches, citing a violation of oxygen level reading technology. in Masimo’s blood. Apple has since appealed that ITC decision and resumed sales of its smartwatches. after removing the controversial technology. In a countersuit filed in 2022, Apple alleged that Masimo had copied features from its Apple Watch for use in its own devices and claimed that Masimo was using the litigation as a strategy to clear the way for its products. Masimo characterized Apple’s lawsuit as “retaliation” and an attempt to circumvent the ongoing litigation process.

 

Source link

Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.

Leave a Comment