Apple Watch Stays on US Market, But Pulse-Ox Disabled Pending Appeal

by Dennis Crouch

Apple v. Masimo (Fed. Cir. 2024) (Apple Stay Denial)

After initially granting a temporary reprieve, the Federal Circuit has now denied Apple’s stay pending appeal of the International Trade Commission’s limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order (“the Remedial Orders”) against Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2.

The baseline approach in American patent law is that any injunction issued by the district court will stay in effect through the duration of any appeal. However, district and appellate courts regularly stay the injunction if the defendant is able to satisfy a four-factor test that largely parallels the eBay standard:

  1. whether the movant has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits;
  2. whether the movant will be irreparably harmed absent a stay;
  3. whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
  4. where the public interest lies.

See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009). In its analysis, the Federal Circuit simply stated that it had reviewed the factors and, although it had the power to issue a stay,  such action was not appropriate here.

Following the ITC’s exclusion order, Apple filed a request with the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of US Customs (EOE Branch) seeking a ruling that it could still import the Apple Watch having the Pulse-Ox feature disabled.  Although the order itself is still secret, the Federal Circuit included a remark that the EOE Branch had concluded that “Apple’s redesigned products are not subject to the Remedial Orders.” A NYT article explains that:

People who buy a new watch in the United States will still see Apple’s Blood Oxygen app on the devices, the company said. But if they tap the app, it will say the feature is no longer available.

The image below comes from Apple Briefing from last week that attempted to keep information about the redesign confidential.

Presumably, Apple will have the capability of turning the functionality back-on via system update when either the patents expire or are found invalid.

So, bottom line here is that the Apple Watch stays on the market, but only if it disables the Pulse-Oximetry functionality.  The decision here is also preliminary — Apple will still be arguing in the appellate briefing that it should have won at the ITC and that the exclusion order is improper.  That briefing will take a few months and a decision might be 1 year away.

An important note here is that the ITC case only focuses on blocking importation and post-importation sales in the US.  It does not award any money damages and it does not apply to sales of Apple Watch outside of the US.  Masimo may separately seek infringement damages in parallel Federal Court litigation and has a related ongoing trade secrets lawsuit against Apple seeking almost $2 billion in damages.

33 thoughts on “Apple Watch Stays on US Market, But Pulse-Ox Disabled Pending Appeal

  1. 6

    [OT] Judge Newman — 119 days since an Article III judge was removed from her position by her colleagues (some might say, jurisprudential adversaries). Still looking for an empowering clause in Art. III, or anywhere else, to justify this.

      1. 6.1.1

        she’s not been impeached. Plus, Congress DID pass enabling legislation for judges to police their own.


          I know she wasn’t impeached but removed at least temporarily from the bench. I don’t see how this is Constitutional. “Enabling legislation”? How can that be Constitutional.


            “I don’t see how this is Constitutional”

            Nobody cares what you think about anything, gramps. Maybe send Newman a bag of your favorite prunes instead of showcasing your cognitive decline on the Internet.

  2. 5

    I may have evidence that has not been checked out. I hope the DOJ will speak with me about it. I will not share it until they speak with me.
    It may be nothing. But, I think it will expose this whole situation. It won’t hurt to listen to what I have to say.

  3. 3

    If you wear one of these p.o.s. watches and it flashes noticeably in my sightline in a movie theater or other event, be prepared to digest it.

      1. 3.1.1

        V10lence towards others is a ‘medical use?’

        Because, heavens knows, Malcolm is going to be micro-transgressed ANY time anything he does not like happens to be in his sightlines….

  4. 2


    I am surprised that no one has mentioned the latest attack on the Chevron Doctrine and that the Supremes will probably strike it down.

    link to


    link to

    Judges have little or no expertise in science and technology even at CAFC.

    The problem is that the Patent Office is no poster child for Chevron. Indeed, the Patent Office provides good reason to strike down Chevron.

    1. 2.2


      I would disagree – from the cogent legal standpoint – given that a variety of different levels of “power of interpretation” are afforded the spectrum of administrative agencies based on their articles of incorporation and the fact that the administrative agency of the Patent Office is simply lower on that spectrum for even being able to bank fully on the Chevron Doctrine level of applying interpretation.

      But let’s let others (like Malcolm) reply ONLY with insults….

    2. 2.4

      Re: “I am surprised that no one [here] has mentioned the latest attack on the Chevron Doctrine and that the Supremes will probably strike it down.” Likewise. But IPWatchdog did. See my comment there.

  5. 1

    You know that Apple figures the CAFC will come through for them and invalidate the claims based on 101. This one seems pretty clear that Pulse-Ox invented something that Apple wanted so rather than license it, they figured the US patent system would have their back.

    I actually have some experience in these matters. I worked with a start-up long ago where the core of making the start-up successful was figuring out how to get information like oxygen levels and pulse rate. This was clear as day. And it was a race to see who could figure it how to do it first. Not easy thing to do. The engineers at the start-up I was working with were from MIT and CMU. It was an incredibly difficult job to try and measure these biometrics within the scale of a watch.

    Again, though, the CAFC judges will go into their back room with tissue paper and imagine they could have figured this out in an afternoon and invalidate the claims.

    1. 1.1

      And, WT, I don’t see how you have any credibility. The laptop was and is real and you argued endless that the nonsense in the W P was true. You need to do a reset. Change your news sources.

      1. 1.1.2

        Of course the laptop was real.
        Of course ANY statement indicating such is “Far Right.”

        Such is the Overton Window shift effect due to the speed leftward (aka, the Sprint Left effect).

        Joe Rogan is Far Right.
        Dr. James Lyndsay is Far Right.
        Dr. Jordan Peterson is Far Right.
        Drs. Bret Weinstein & Heather Heydig are Far Right.

        Anyone not towing to the Desired Narrative is Far Right.

        See: One Bucketing.


          Hey look, it’s the Cavalcade of Billy’s Favorite Toxic I d i o t s!

          He’s such an independent thinker.


            And who – pray tell – is on your cavalcade?

            This is merely a list of asserted Far Right that are not in fact Far Right.

            But tell me also, Malcolm, what does your cavalcade tell you to ‘think’ (major air quotes necessary in your case) about the Israel/Hamas issue. now 103 days old?


            It is well known that Krystal of Krystal and Saagar at Breaking Points is Far Left, and (no doubt) the regulars here who want to claim that the Democrat Party is “all about protecting Democracy” will peg her as Far Right given her views on the DNC rigging the primary system to mandate a single choice of the unpopular Joe Biden.

            At about 22:40:

            link to

            Of course, I do not expect you (or any of the other regular Sprint Left folk here) to address this point.


              How much more Billy can you get beyond this bizarre and childish attempt to equate intra-party decision making with the suppression/disenfranchisement/nullification of all votes for the opposing party?

              The answer is none. None more Billy. What a frackin’ c l o w n.


                of all votes for the opposing party?

                Just how much lipstick are you going to slather on that strawman of yours?

    2. 1.2

      know that Apple figures the CAFC will come through for them and invalidate the claims based on 101

      We will see – especially since in this instance, the head of Masimo is a HUGE “FOPB***” having donated megabucks ‘to the cause.’

      *** Friend Of Puppet Biden.

Comments are closed.