Masimo sues the US CBP, saying it exceeded its authority in an August 1 internal advice ruling that let Apple reactivate a Watch blood oxygen tracking feature
US Customs and Border Protection unlawfully let Apple Inc. reactivate a blood-oxygen tracking feature on Apple Watches …
Context & Ripple Effects
This dispute extends a long-running fight over pulse-oximetry technology: Masimo first alleged Apple had taken blood-oxygen and heart-rate monitoring technology in its 2020 patent suit, and an ITC judge later found that some Apple Watches infringed a Masimo pulse-oximetry patent.
CBP had previously provided a path for Apple to keep selling affected watches by disabling pulse oximetry, reflected in its earlier advice on a feature-disabled Watch. The new suit shifts the contest from whether the feature can be altered to whether CBP had legal room to approve its return.
First-order effects
- Masimo’s case directly challenges the CBP advice that underpins Apple’s ability to offer blood-oxygen tracking again, putting that authorization into litigation.
- Apple gains the immediate benefit of the agency’s advice, while Masimo must pursue CBP’s action as well as its underlying patent claims to preserve the practical effect of its enforcement win.
Second-order effects
- The dispute makes CBP’s interpretation central to the commercial value of wearable-health patent remedies: a feature change may be insufficiently settled if the agency’s approval is later overturned.
- Other device makers facing import-related patent constraints may watch how much certainty internal CBP advice provides before relying on software or feature modifications as a route back to market.
Third-order effects
- If this pattern persists, patent disputes over connected devices will increasingly turn on implementation at the border and in software, not only on infringement findings; that can make remedies more dependent on agency interpretation.
- The case could clarify the boundary between CBP’s role in administering exclusion-related decisions and the rights of patent holders, though the outcome will determine whether that boundary materially changes.
The trend: Wearable-health patent fights are expanding from hardware claims into the regulatory and software mechanisms that determine whether disputed features can remain available.