Apple wins $250 US jury verdict in patent case over Masimo smartwatches
28 comments
·October 26, 2024Cheer2171
Apple sued for violations of both design patents and tech patents. Apple won that Masimo's design infringes on Apple's design patents, for which they only asked for $250. Apple lost the other technology patent infringement parts of the case, for which they were asking for an injunction against Masimo selling their watches.
borski
To be clear, Masimo’s old (and previously discontinued) design infringes on Apple’s design patents, not the one presently on the market.
runjake
In case the point is missed: Apple asked for $250, stating their cases was on principle. The courts aren’t slighting Apple.
borski
> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
But on this point, they lost. $250 is the statutory minimum in the US for infringement. Apple did not successfully win an injunction, which was what they really wanted.
refulgentis
Interesting, I figured now they're going for an injunction, now that they have the ruling, no?
I don't think you can get a jury ruling then immediately ask for an injunction with the same judge and all
Fwiw I'm a bit confused overall, it seems like either Apple is full on Baghdad Bob'ing or there's still an injunction to go for. More I think about, it's probably A :p
borski
Apple sued for infringement of their design patents, for Masimo’s old watches and chargers, and asked for $250 in damages. They won that set of claims, meaning Masimo’s old watches and chargers infringe.
Masimo’s current products did not infringe, and Apple tried to sue on the basis that they infringed their technical/utility patents. On this set of claims, the jury disagreed, and the damages Apple was asking for there was injunctive relief against Masimo’s current products (aka taking them off the market). They lost that.
refulgentis
Well, no.
They didn't say it was on principle, they said they were going for a ruling so they could then apply for an injunction.
They got a judgement on a discontinued charger, which makes it seem unlikely they'll be able to go for an injunction on today's watches.
paultopia
Can someone please explain why Apple doesn't just buy Masimo in a fight like this? Their market cap is like 5% of Apple's annual profit...
sxg
Masimo's CEO and board have to approve the purchase, but it appears that Masimo isn't interested in being bought.
adtac
so that the next company won't sue
kylehotchkiss
Does this mean watches will get their blood oxygen sensors back? The news hasn’t yet seemed to clear this up for me
mauriciob
That’s a separate case (Masimo suing Apple) which is still ongoing. Apple countersued to try to block Masimo from releasing their own smartwatch, this article refers to this case.
CharlesW
Yes, but not because of this specific verdict. This was a (failed) attempt to impact the ability of Masimo to sell its own smartwatch, in which case Masimo would've lost the ability to continue blocking imports of Apple Watches with an enabled pulse oximetry feature in the U.S.
null
gnabgib
Small discussion (13 points, 17 hours ago, 5 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41950858
mensetmanusman
Can you convert $250 to number of apple smart watches?
pinkmuffinere
Not sure if this request is serious, but it’s approx 0.5 Apple smart watches
HumblyTossed
Title really doesn't do the article justice. There's a BIT more going on there than just the $250 that Apple got.
jijji
It looks like Apple's claims were related to the charging of the watch itself... Which brings me to my question of why not use standard USB Type-C charging ports instead of some proprietary charging method? It seems like from the very beginning it is a poor choice, on both parties, to charge a device using a non-standard charging device.
arjvik
It makes sense to have wearables like watches and smart rings charge via wireless inductive charging, because the physical space of even a USB-C port inside a watch is quite limiting for the electronics that can be placed inside the watch, and physically wouldn't fit inside of a ring.
sjm-lbm
Wireless inductive charging also allows for a (more) sealed case design, which is helpful for a device that will almost certainly encounter moisture in normal use cases.
I can keep my phone somewhere dry when it's raining, I've never thought to take off my watch when it rains.
bell-cot
Suggested Title change: s/wins $250/wins only $250.00/
That'd minimal editorializing - while making it quite clear that there is no missing 'K', let alone missing 'M'.
altairprime
Email the mods (footer contact link) if you’d like to see the title changed; make your case, or link your comment here, and they may agree with you. Otherwise they probably won’t see this comment (whether it’s upvoted or not).
lttlrck
"wins token $250"
stillwaitingpls
It's already old news at this point. The major damage you highlighted is already done.
napierzaza
[dead]
With this case it seems like Apple is just going to take them to court again and again until the well runs dry and Masimo’s patents can be purchased for pennies on the dollar. https://www.masimoconsumer.com/ Their products feel simultaneously like knock offs and 5 years old all at once.