Apple is actively contesting a federal trade ruling that has led to the removal of the blood-oxygen monitoring feature from its latest Apple Watch models and halted their importation into the United States. On July 7, 2025, Apple presented its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, aiming to overturn the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) 2023 decision, which favored medical technology company Masimo.
The ITC determined that Apple had infringed upon Masimo’s patents related to pulse oximetry technology. This ruling resulted in an import ban on the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models, prompting Apple to temporarily withdraw these products from U.S. stores in late December. Although Apple resumed sales after obtaining a temporary stay, the ban was reinstated in January 2024, compelling the company to disable the blood-oxygen feature in all newly sold U.S. models.
Background of the Dispute
The legal conflict between Masimo and Apple began in 2021. Masimo, a California-based medical technology firm, accused Apple of misappropriating its technology following initial discussions about a potential collaboration. Masimo also alleged that Apple recruited key employees and utilized trade secrets to develop the blood-oxygen monitoring feature introduced in the Apple Watch Series 6 in 2020.
In 2022, Masimo launched its own wearable device, the W1 watch. Apple contends that Masimo did not have a finished product in the market when it filed its ITC complaint, arguing that the commission should not have issued an import ban based on prototype devices.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
During the oral arguments on July 7, Apple attorney Joseph Mueller asserted that the ban unjustly deprived millions of Apple Watch users of a crucial health feature. He argued that Masimo lacked a competing smartwatch at the time of its complaint and suggested that the lawsuit was an attempt to clear the market for its own product.
The judges questioned whether Masimo’s entry into the market after Apple introduced the feature undermines the justification for an import ban. Masimo’s attorney, Joseph Re, countered by stating that U.S. patent law does not require a finished product to justify enforcement.
The case is officially titled Apple Inc v. ITC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 24-1285. Representing Apple is Joseph Mueller of WilmerHale, while Masimo is represented by Joseph Re of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear. Ronald Traud appeared on behalf of the ITC.
Implications and Future Outlook
The outcome of this appeal holds significant implications for both companies and the broader wearable technology market. For Apple, a successful appeal could restore the full functionality of its latest Apple Watch models in the U.S. market, reinforcing its position as a leader in health-focused wearable technology. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Masimo could affirm the importance of intellectual property rights and potentially influence how technology companies approach collaborations and the integration of medical technologies into consumer devices.
As the legal proceedings continue, consumers and industry stakeholders are closely monitoring developments, recognizing that the final decision could set a precedent for future disputes involving technology and healthcare innovations.
