A new chapter has been added to the conflict between Apple and medical technology expert Massimo: The iPhone maker has won a countersuit, in a barely noticeable victory. in one Jury trial in federal court in Delaware Apple was only awarded the minimum amount possible in a patent infringement case: a full $250.
Advertisement
Little money, restrictions only on old devices
As a reminder: last year Massimo succeeded in imposing a US import ban on the Apple Watch because it allegedly infringed the company’s patents in the field of blood oxygen measurement. The result was that the watch was briefly removed from the market, but after a few weeks the watch became available again, albeit without the complained about feature. (Europe is not affected by the controversy; you can still use the function here.)
Apple also filed a lawsuit against Masimo – or the manufacturer’s two smartwatch models and their charging technology. The “W1” and “Freedom” devices are said to infringe Apple’s own patents. The jury of Delaware has now confirmed this. However, they only gave Apple the minimum fine required by law. Apple lawyers previously told the court that the lawsuit was “not about money” but about obtaining a sales ban. However, the devices are no longer in Masimo’s official range.
Massimo: Apple launches “retaliation lawsuit”
Apple also wanted to ban new devices, but ultimately it didn’t work. However, Apple said it was “satisfied with the jury’s decision to protect the innovations we are advancing for our customers.” A spokesman for Massimo said that Apple was primarily trying to ban existing products, so the jury’s decision “is a victory for Massimo in this area.”
In late 2023, Massimo managed to convince the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban the import of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2. An appeal process is currently underway. Apple filed a countersuit in 2022, alleging that Massimo had copied Apple Watch functions for its computer watches. Massimo said it was a “retaliatory action” and “an attempt to bypass the court in which the parties litigated their dispute.” The other two proceedings are ongoing in the ITC and California.
(B.Sc.)
