Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1285.OPINION.3-19-2026_2663002.pdf"><em>Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission</em>, Case No. 2024-1285 (Mar. 19, 2026)</a>, affirming the International Trade Commission’s determination that Apple violated § 337 of the Tariff Act, by importing Apple Watch models that infringed Masimo patents covering wearable blood oxygen measurement devices.

core/paragraph

In June 2021, Masimo filed an ITC complaint alleging that Apple violated Section 337. After a five-day hearing, an administrative law judge found a violation based on claims 24 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648. On review, the Commission affirmed that ruling and reversed the ALJ’s ruling that claim 12 of the ’648 patent and claims 22 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,502 were invalid for lack of written description. The Commission nevertheless found no domestic industry for claim 22 of the ’502 patent. Finding a Section 337 violation based on claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent and claim 28 of the ’502 patent, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of the accused Apple Watches. Apple appealed, challenging domestic industry, validity, infringement, and prosecution laches.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. On domestic industry, Apple argued that Masimo failed to satisfy the technical prong because it failed to identify an actual patent-practicing article. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the technical prong analysis is not so rigid. It found that the &nbsp;Commission properly identified the Masimo Watch as the relevant domestic industry article, supported by prototypes, witness testimony, testing data, and other credited circumstantial evidence. The Court likewise upheld the economic prong, concluding that the Commission did not err in crediting R&amp;D investments, including investments in earlier prototypes.

The Court also rejected the invalidity challenges. As to obviousness, it held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the “Lumidigm” prior art did not teach measuring blood oxygen saturation as claimed. As to written description, it held that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s determination that the asserted claims were adequately described in the specification.

On infringement, the Court affirmed the Commission’s plain and ordinary construction of “over” and “above” as referring to the relative placement of components within the device and agreed that “openings” and “through holes” could include transparent material. Finally, the Court rejected Apple’s prosecution laches defense, finding no abuse of discretion.

CAFC Affirms ITC Finding of Section 337 Violation in Apple Watch Dispute

Related Professionals