The long-running patent fight between Apple and Masimo has taken a new turn, and it is once again bringing attention to how complicated the convergence of trade law, technology, and healthcare innovation has become. The US International Trade Commission has said that it will start a new case to figure out if the newest versions of the Apple Watch break medical technology patents owned by Masimo. The likelihood of another import ban has brought up the question of how far big tech corporations can go in redesigning items to get around past decisions. It has also raised the question of whether smaller medical enterprises can protect their ideas when big companies come into their field.
Apple’s blood-oxygen monitoring feature is at the centre of the debate. This functionality has been a key part of how the company markets its smartwatches. For a lot of people, being able to detect oxygen saturation seems like a natural next step for current wearable health devices. But for Masimo, a medical monitoring business based in Irvine, California, it means decades of research and development. Masimo says that Apple employed important people in the wrong way, utilised secret information about its pulse-oximetry advances, and put the technology directly into its watch without permission. On the other hand, Apple has always denied these claims, saying that Masimo’s effort is an aggressive way to stop competition instead of preserve innovation.
The International Trade Commission’s judgement shows that the issue is far from over. The ITC had already found in Masimo’s favour a few years earlier, which resulted to a temporary restriction on importing Apple’s Series 9 and Ultra 2 devices in 2023. Apple took away the capacity to read blood oxygen levels from those gadgets so that it could keep selling them in the US. People thought it was a hesitant compromise from a firm that doesn’t often back down. Apple didn’t give up on the technology completely, either. Instead, it came back in August with a new version of the functionality that US Customs and Border Protection had supposedly approved. The fact that they got the go-ahead meant that the improvements were big enough to not break the earlier verdict.
Masimo still wasn’t convinced and asked the Commission to go over the new design. The ITC has finally said yes. The fresh examination will look into whether the latest Apple Watch models still violate the patents or if Apple was able to work around them. The Commission thinks the investigation will be done in six months. This means that Apple will have to deal with further uncertainty just when demand usually goes up over the holidays. The Apple Watch is one of the most well-known products in the world, but it is currently stuck in a legal cycle that might stop its sale in one of its greatest markets over and over again.
Apple’s public response has been strong and sure. It said that Masimo’s case was a baseless attempt to stop its smartwatch line and that Masimo, not Apple, was the one copying product design. Apple’s position in patent battles is consistent with its long-standing attitude in the tech industry. The corporation often says that it is the one coming up with new ideas, but its competitors are getting in the way by bringing lawsuits instead of coming up with new ideas. How the ITC interprets technical evidence will have a big impact on whether this story is true in this case.
The bigger problem is that patent fights are getting worse as IT businesses that make consumer devices mix together healthcare and personal gadgets. These days, wearables do a lot more than just measure steps or show messages. They keep an eye on cardiac rhythms, check oxygen levels, and even try to find health problems early on. In a way, the expansion makes individuals feel more powerful by giving them access to tools that were only available in hospitals or clinics before. But it also puts firms like Apple in direct competition with specialised medical device makers whose patents are typically very particular and safeguarded after years of lab study. When the rivalry goes beyond app features to technology that is good enough for use in hospitals, the stakes are really high.
This struggle also has a cultural side. People don’t know the name Masimo, yet it has been a respected name in hospital monitoring systems for decades. Apple, on the other hand, is a worldwide brand that can change what people expect from a product overnight. If Apple says that a health feature is important, millions of people will believe it within days. Some doctors and other medical professionals have applauded Apple for making health indicators a part of everyday living. Some others are concerned that quick adoption by consumers could eclipse stricter medical technology norms, making it hard for people to understand that their smartwatch is not a diagnostic instrument.
Another level is added by trade legislation. The ITC can stop imports completely instead of just giving money damages. That makes patent conflicts before the Commission much more important than civil cases. Apple has the money to remodel and relaunch a product many times, but each time it does, it changes supply chains, marketing plans, and what investors expect. Masimo, on the other hand, has used the ITC process to get an edge over a much bigger competitor. Even if it never wins a big settlement, it has made Apple explain the validity of its design choices again and over again.
It may seem far away from ordinary life to see corporations fight about who really came up with a feature, yet it affects what ends up on store shelves. Some people were confused about why some smartwatch models no longer showed oxygen readings after the original prohibition went into effect in 2023. Some people were astonished to find out that the function needed patented medical knowledge to work, rather than just a regular digital sensor. Because of the latest probe, Apple may have to stop shipping or release software patches that turn off functionality again.
The truth is that technology changes quicker than the law can fully keep up. If the Commission decides that Apple didn’t infringe by redesigning its products, it will support the idea of reengineering around patents. If it decides against Apple again, other tech companies may think twice before getting into the medical field without solid development records.
