I guess good news in the sense that the courts finally ruled on a patent that expired 3 years ago. There were 4 court decisions (2 on Jan 10th, 2 on Jan. 12th). Two favored Masimo, and two favored Apple. Patent 6,771,994 expired in 2020. Patents 10,945,648 and 10,912,502 expire in 2028. The patents mention glucose, and a new invention for glucose would be big news. Most patents are junk, but some are quite valuable. Optics can be tricky to design, and I think the Masimo patents are legit. But Apple might have better lawyers. There have been wins on both sides in the many court cases.
=== links ===
ITC: Apple is an “Adjudicated Infringer” Improperly Seeking “Permission to Continue Infringing”, January 12, 2024
“The two patents found infringed by the ITC are Masimo’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,945,648 (claims 24 and 30) and 10,912,502 (claim 22). Apple also challenged several other Masimo patents via inter partes review. This week, the Federal Circuit released four decisions stemming from those IPR proceedings – none of which involve the two ITC patents. The court affirmed the PTAB decision in each case — with two favoring Masimo, and two favoring Apple.”
There were 4 decisions:
Apple Inc. appeals a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which determined that claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,703 were not un-patentable as obvious. We affirm.
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that claims 1−16 of Masimo’s U.S. Patent 10,433,776 (the “’776 patent”) were not un-patentable as obvious in view of the asserted prior art. Ap-ple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., No. IPR2020-01524 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2022), J.A. 1−52 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) determining claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,994 (“the ’994 patent”) unpatentable for obviousness. We affirm.
Thanks for the further context. It’s a lot more complicated than I realized.