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.
> 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.
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
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. They can't go for an injunction since the jury ruled that Masimo's current products do not infringe.
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.
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.
The CEO wasn’t. Rumors were he was single-handedly refusing to listen to any offer, which is why (supposedly) he was pushed out recently.
Somewhat surprising a deal wasn’t made after that. Perhaps Apple though this would strengthen their bargaining position and was waiting to see how this would go.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
reply