Listen to this Post
Introduction
Apple’s legal clash with Masimo has taken yet another dramatic turn. At the heart of the conflict lies Apple’s innovative Blood Oxygen feature on the Apple Watch — a function Masimo claims infringes on its patented medical technology. What began as a patent dispute has now escalated into a high-profile battle involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), court dismissals, and heated accusations of overstepping authority. This ongoing war between a tech titan and a medical device maker could redefine how regulatory agencies handle patent disputes in consumer electronics.
A Recap of the Ongoing Dispute
When Apple first introduced the Blood Oxygen monitoring feature on the Apple Watch, Masimo immediately accused the company of patent infringement. The case dragged through the courts, eventually resulting in an import ban in December 2023 that restricted the sale of Apple Watches with the feature enabled in the United States.
Apple responded swiftly, temporarily halting sales, before resuming with modified models — the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2. These versions included the necessary hardware but had the Blood Oxygen feature disabled via software, a move seen as a compromise while legal battles continued.
In July 2025, Apple announced a workaround: a “redesigned Blood Oxygen feature” that shifts the calculation process from the Apple Watch to the iPhone. This allowed Apple to claim compliance with the ruling while keeping the functionality alive. Just weeks later, Masimo struck back, suing CBP. The company argued that the agency acted improperly by allowing Apple to restore the feature without giving Masimo due process or notice.
Masimo’s filing criticized CBP’s decision as a reversal without justification. According to the lawsuit, Apple secured approval through an ex parte proceeding — meaning Masimo was excluded from the decision-making process. This approval allowed Apple to continue selling watches with the re-enabled Blood Oxygen feature.
CBP responded firmly with a motion to dismiss. The agency claimed that Congress had already defined a legal path for these disputes, pointing to previous cases such as Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich. According to CBP, Masimo must present its arguments before the International Trade Commission (ITC) first, not directly in federal district court. Only after exhausting ITC procedures can Masimo appeal to the Federal Circuit.
In short, CBP’s position is that Masimo cannot sidestep the established process. Their filing emphasized that while Masimo may challenge Apple’s redesign, it must do so through the proper legal channels. The agency ended with a call to dismiss the lawsuit due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This tug-of-war continues to intensify, with the future of Apple’s Blood Oxygen feature — and perhaps broader rules on tech innovation — hanging in the balance.
What Undercode Say:
The legal drama between Apple and Masimo is not just a battle over patents; it’s a test of regulatory frameworks, innovation strategies, and corporate resilience.
Apple’s tactic of moving the Blood Oxygen computation from the watch to the iPhone shows the company’s determination to preserve user experience while navigating legal minefields. This “software workaround” approach is a classic Apple strategy: pushing the limits of technology while staying just on the edge of compliance.
Masimo, on the other hand, is playing a longer game. The company is not just seeking to protect its intellectual property — it’s also making a statement about how big tech can’t steamroll over established medical device makers. If Masimo succeeds in convincing the ITC that Apple’s redesign still violates patents, the consequences could ripple across the entire wearable tech industry.
Another key angle is the role of CBP. By greenlighting Apple’s redesigned feature, Customs effectively took a stance that innovation-driven workarounds are permissible — but their decision also raises questions about fairness, transparency, and due process. Masimo’s complaint highlights a real concern: should such critical rulings be made without input from all stakeholders?
This case also underlines how patent battles have evolved in the modern era. In the past, disputes were limited to courtrooms and settlements. Today, they intersect with regulatory agencies, international trade rules, and even consumer perception. Every move by Apple or Masimo is closely watched not only by legal experts but also by Wall Street investors and everyday consumers who want to know whether their next Apple Watch will include vital health-tracking features.
The outcome could set a precedent for future conflicts. If Apple prevails, it would signal that creative software adjustments can circumvent patent blocks, giving tech giants a blueprint for handling similar disputes. But if Masimo wins, it could reinforce the power of patent holders to enforce their rights even against the biggest players in Silicon Valley.
At its core, this fight isn’t just about who owns the rights to measure blood oxygen levels. It’s about control — control over innovation, consumer trust, and the balance of power between disruptive tech companies and traditional medical device manufacturers.
✅ Fact Checker Results
Apple did face an import ban in December 2023 restricting watches with Blood Oxygen features.
CBP did approve Apple’s redesigned workaround in August 2025 without Masimo’s involvement.
Masimo’s lawsuit challenges CBP’s authority, but the agency insists only the ITC has jurisdiction.
🔮 Prediction
Looking ahead, this legal saga is unlikely to end quickly. Apple will continue to push its workaround strategy, ensuring minimal disruption to consumers. Masimo, however, will persist at the ITC level, potentially prolonging the dispute for years. The most probable outcome: Apple keeps selling watches with modified features, while Masimo secures financial settlements or licensing agreements. Ultimately, this case may shape how future tech-patent disputes are managed in the U.S. — with consumers caught in the middle.
🕵️📝✔️Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
References:
Reported By: 9to5mac.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.stackexchange.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon
