Why Masimo’s ‘Rare’ Move Pushes Apple Case into Uncharted Territory

The company’s decision to sue US customs may result in a “roadmap” to sidestep ITC orders—and patent litigators are watching, finds Marisa Woutersen.

Apple and Masimo’s long running legal battle has taken an unexpected turn, this time pulling US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the fray.

The medtech company filed a lawsuit and temporary restraining order against CBP, accusing the agency of “unlawfully” helping Apple sidestep a ban on its Apple Watch blood oxygen feature.

Masimo claimed CBP wrongly granted Apple an ex parte ruling last month, letting the company reintroduce a redesigned version of the feature at the centre of the pair’s patent dispute.

But CBP, backed by the US International Trade Commission (ITC), is pushing back. It asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that only the ITC has authority over Masimo’s claims.

It’s not every day that a patent owner sues CBP and Masimo has opened what some experts see as a new front in the long-running fight.

Others warn that the case could hand companies a roadmap to dodge ITC import bans.

What happens next could not only determine whether Apple keeps its redesigned watches on US shelves but also how much power CBP has to grant redesigns on its own—and whether patent owners can still count on exclusion orders as the powerful enforcement tool they were meant to be.

Jeffrey Saltman of Cole Schotz notes that it is also “very unusual for CBP to reverse itself like this”, pointing out that the August ruling seems to conflict with the ITC exclusion order that blocked certain Apple Watches with the blood oxygen feature from being imported.

Saltman stresses the wider stakes: “What makes this situation so important is how all these moving parts—CBP’s reversal, the ITC decision, Apple’s appeal, and Masimo’s lawsuit—come together.

“Depending on how it plays out, it could give other companies a roadmap to sidestep an ITC exclusion order,” he says.

Renaud agrees, adding that recent rulings suggest “increased flexibility by CBP” when it comes to imports involving redesigns that divide functions between devices—approaches not addressed in the original ITC case.

He also notes that Apple has shown a “significant willingness” to fight adverse rulings, but a loss here could push it toward earlier settlements in future disputes.

To read the full article, please click here.