Apple has secured a minimal monetary judgment in its design patent lawsuit against medical device maker Masimo, with a jury awarding the tech giant only the statutory minimum of $250. The verdict represents a mixed outcome in the ongoing legal battle between the two companies.
Key Verdict Points:
- Monetary Award: $250 (statutory minimum)
- Infringement Finding: Jury found willful infringement of Apple’s design patents
- Affected Products: Limited to discontinued Masimo products
- Current Products: Not affected by the verdict
Apple’s Strategic Objectives
“We’re not here for the money.”
– John Desmarais, Apple’s Attorney
According to Bloomberg Law, Apple’s strategy in the case focused less on monetary compensation and more on preventing what it saw as design copying. However, the limited scope of the verdict may have fallen short of this objective.
Scope of Infringement
The jury determined that three discontinued Masimo products infringed on Apple’s design patents:
- Original W1 Freedom design
- Original health module
- Original charger design
Masimo’s Response
“Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo’s current products, and the jury’s verdict is a victory for Masimo on that issue.
– Masimo Corporation Statement
Masimo emphasized that the verdict only affected discontinued products, viewing the outcome as favorable since it did not impact their current product line.
Broader Legal Context
Related Legal Developments:
- Original Dispute: Masimo’s patent infringement claims against Apple Watch’s pulse-oximetry feature
- Current Status:
- Feature disabled in Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2
- Feature absent from new Series 10
- Restrictions limited to United States market
- Apple appealing import ban on affected models
Separate Issues
Apple’s legal team, through attorney Desmarais, emphasized that this design patent case is distinct from the ongoing pulse-oximetry patent dispute, stating that the feature “has nothing to do with this case.
Implications
The verdict highlights several important aspects of the ongoing technological and legal landscape:
- Limited impact of design patent victories when focused on discontinued products
- Strategic use of patent litigation for business objectives beyond monetary compensation
- Complex nature of concurrent patent disputes between technology companies
- Importance of distinguishing between different types of patent claims
Looking Forward
While this case has reached a conclusion, the broader legal battle between Apple and Masimo continues, particularly regarding the pulse-oximetry technology. The outcome of Apple’s appeal against the import ban remains a significant pending development in this ongoing dispute.
Further Reading
Add Comment