Delaware federal jury awards award
The mixed jury verdict marks the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over smartwatch patents between tech giant Apple, which has a market capitalization of more than $3.5 trillion, and Masimo, which has a market capitalization of $7.5 billion. . The dispute led to an import ban on certain Apple Watch models on Christmas Day last year, and that appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Apple’s $250 damages claim was the lowest it could seek as it sought a jury trial rather than a judge trial over Masimo’s alleged violations of the aesthetics and functionality of the Apple Watch. Although Apple won damages from a jury, the verdict leaves little chance of blocking Masimo’s current products.
“We’re not here for the money,” Apple attorney John Desmarais LLP told jurors in closing arguments Friday. “We want you to stop copying our designs,” the feature says. He slammed Masimo for its focus on innovating pulse oximetry, the blood oxygen measurement feature the company is best known for developing.
According to a judgment issued in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Masimo’s original design for the W1, Freedom, and Health modules infringed U.S. Patent No. D883,279. The jury rejected Masimo’s claim to invalidate the ‘279 patent.
The jury also found that Masimo’s original charger design infringed U.S. Patent No. D735,131. The jury found that the infringement was intentional.
Cash compensation wasn’t a big concern for Apple, since its victory could lead to a potential injunction lawsuit. However, a Masimo spokesperson said the jury found that “discontinued modules and chargers,” not Masimo’s current products, “infringed two Apple design patents.” This distinction undermines Apple’s claim of irreparable harm because the infringement involves older products rather than products currently on the market.
“Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo’s current products, and the jury’s verdict is a victory for Masimo on this issue,” Masimo’s statement said.
An Apple spokesperson said that while “Apple teams spent years developing the Apple Watch,” “Masimo cut corners and created a device that copies the Apple Watch and infringes on our intellectual property.” has been released.”
The pulse oximetry feature, which is at the center of Masimo’s own patent infringement allegations that have plagued the Apple Watch for more than four years, “has nothing to do with this case,” Desmarais said.
closed
Brian Horn, a lawyer at Nobu Mertens who is representing Masimo, said of Apple in closing arguments that “they may be a little embarrassed” by Masimo’s success with the pulse oximetry feature. . “Maybe they’re trying to shake off some dirt.”
Mr. Horn told jurors that Mr. Masimo’s devices do not infringe any patents claimed by Apple, and argued that all but one of them should not have been issued. He asserted Apple’s claim that Masimo was intentionally infringing on the company’s “most outrageous claims.”
“Our entire company is built on pulse oximetry,” Horn said. Masimo “revolutionized an industry” and “changed the world.”
“We came to the consumer space to bring life-saving technology to the masses,” Horn said. He criticized Apple for focusing on making “beautiful products” that look “like jewelry.” He said Masimo only cares about its products working well. He pointed the jury to comments from the company’s recently departed CEO Joe Chiani, who described Masimo watches as “an ugly product.”
“If you bring common sense to this matter, the deliberation should take five minutes,” Desmarais said. He called Masimo’s various claims “nonsense,” “ridiculous,” “hopeless” and “the stupidest defense I have ever heard.”
During a pretrial conference on Oct. 11, in what Hall’s subsequent order called an “exciting turn of events,” Masimo’s attorney handed over $900 in cash to Apple’s attorney and awarded Apple damages. They tried to avoid a jury trial by making the claim for compensation an “issue.” Apple returned the cash and the court ruled that the case could proceed to a jury trial.
“But even if it wasn’t,” Hall said. Masimo’s offer to provide Apple with some of the remedies it seeks does not “negate” this lawsuit or even Apple’s claims of patent infringement—Masimo has not admitted liability, nor does it The company has also not agreed to suspend sales of the products it is accused of doing. ”
Earlier this month, Hall rejected a challenge to the validity of two utility patents and the company’s proposal to make Apple’s patents unenforceable. Masimo withdrew its challenge to the validity of U.S. Patent No. D735,131 one week before trial.
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Desmarais LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP represent Apple. Masimo is represented by Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA and Nobu Martens.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., Delaware, No. 22-cv-1377, verdict issued October 25, 2024. and Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., Delaware, No. 22-cv-1378, judgment issued October 25, 2024.
