Masimo, a leading medical device company, has initiated legal action against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), accusing the agency of overstepping its authority in a recent decision that allowed Apple to reintroduce blood oxygen monitoring on its Apple Watch models. This development comes amidst an ongoing legal dispute with Apple over the company’s attempt to reintroduce the feature, which was previously banned by the International Trade Commission (ITC) due to alleged patent infringement by Masimo. Following the initial ruling by the ITC, the CBP initially upheld the import ban but later reversed its decision, allowing Apple to resume the feature through a software update. Masimo claims that this reversal was made without due process, proper notice, or opportunity for the company to respond, and that it discovered the change only after Apple’s public announcement. The company is seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the CBP’s decision and reinstate the original ruling. Masimo argues that the CBP’s move effectively nullified the ITC’s exclusion order, which had been upheld in Apple’s appeal. As the legal battle continues, both parties face potential ramifications for their respective positions in the market and the broader implications for international trade and intellectual property rights.
Apple’s initial ruling by the ITC had ordered the company to stop selling certain Apple Watch models that could be used to measure blood oxygen levels, citing potential patent infringement from Masimo. However, after a court review, the ITC’s decision was partially overturned, allowing Apple to continue selling the feature but with restrictions on its functionality. This led to the CBP’s reversal of its earlier decision, allowing Apple to reintroduce the feature through a software update. Masimo contends that this change was made without any meaningful justification or material change in circumstances, and that the CBP’s ex parte ruling was an improper exercise of authority. The company’s legal team has emphasized that the reversal of the original ruling had significant implications, undermining Masimo’s ability to protect its intellectual property and compete fairly in the U.S. market. Masimo’s lawsuit seeks to not only reinstate the original CBP ruling but also to prevent any further actions that could erode the company’s rights and market standing.
As the case moves forward, both Masimo and Apple will be closely watched by stakeholders, investors, and legal experts. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how international trade disputes are resolved, particularly in the technology and healthcare sectors. For Apple, the ability to reintroduce the feature could have a substantial financial impact, given the popularity of its Apple Watch models and the demand for health-related features in its products. Masimo, on the other hand, stands to gain significant relief from the lawsuit, potentially securing stronger protection for its intellectual property and maintaining its competitive position in the medical device market. The case also highlights the complex interplay between patent law, international trade regulations, and corporate strategies, raising questions about the balance between innovation and intellectual property rights. Until the court makes a ruling, the legal battle between Masimo and Apple continues to unfold, with significant financial and market implications for both companies.