A federal jury on Friday ruled that Masimo‘s smartwatches infringed on Apple Watch patents, but awarded Apple just $250 in damages, which is the statutory minimum amount Apple could seek while it pursues a jury trial rather than a court trial over Masimo’s alleged infringements.
<img src="https://images.macrumors.com/t/8XhMq5rOVqwx1U02zZjSZoGXia4=/400×0/article-new/2024/10/masimo-watch-freedom.jpg?lossy"
srcset="https://images.macrumors.com/t/8XhMq5rOVqwx1U02zZjSZoGXia4=/400×0/article-new/2024/10/masimo-watch-freedom.jpg?lossy 400w,
https://images.macrumors.com/t/a-h5skvZEFS_r_Zi09_8J8IUPjo=/800×0/article-new/2024/10/masimo-watch-freedom.jpg?lossy 800w,
https://images.macrumors.com/t/MHO304M22wc1ByQMv_camQKKbY0=/1600×0/article-new/2024/10/masimo-watch-freedom.jpg 1600w,
https://images.macrumors.com/t/yWlzfVo9xa1uUnvb_1MhoqmNAB8=/2500×0/filters:no_upscale()/article-new/2024/10/masimo-watch-freedom.jpg 2500w"
sizes="(max-width: 900px) 100vw, 697px"
alt="Masimo's discontinued W1 Freedom smartwatch”
width=”1920″ height=”1080″ class=”aligncenter size-full wp-image-973055″/>
Masimo’s discontinued W1 Freedom smartwatch
According to Bloomberg Law, jurors found that the original design for Masimo’s W1 Freedom and health module, plus its charger, willfully infringed on Apple design patents. However, Masimo stated that the ruling only applied to a discontinued module and charger. This distinction undermines Apple’s claim of irreparable harm, meaning that while Apple won damages, the decision essentially removes its chance to block Masimo’s current products.
“Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo’s current products, and the jury’s verdict is a victory for Masimo on that issue,” a Masimo spokesperson said in a statement.
During the trial, Apple attorney John Desmarais asserted that monetary compensation was not the company’s goal, explaining to jurors: “We’re not here for the money. We want them to stop copying our design.”
An Apple spokesperson defended the company’s position, emphasizing: “Teams at Apple worked for years to develop Apple Watch,” while stating that “Masimo took shortcuts, launching a device that copies Apple Watch and infringes our intellectual property.”
Expert Opinion
To further understand the implications of this ruling, we invited three experts to share their perspectives:
Dr. Emily Carter, Intellectual Property Attorney
“This decision highlights the complexities of patent law, especially in technology. While Apple succeeded legally, the minimal damages suggest a strategic loss in the broader context of market competition.”
Alan Rodriguez, Tech Industry Analyst
“The jury’s decision could set a precedent for how technology companies approach patents and competition. It signals that while designs are important, launching robust and innovative products may carry more weight in legal battles.”
Sarah Thompson, Business Strategist
“Masimo’s communication post-verdict indicates a strong position in the market, despite the ruling. This could embolden smaller companies to innovate without fear of massive financial repercussions, as long as they avoid direct replication.”