Masimo: Apple Watch Is a Patient Monitor in Disguise
During closing arguments, Masimo attorney Brian C. Horne of Knobbe Martens said Apple’s entire defense rested on “one fragile plank”—the insistence that the Apple Watch is not a “patient monitor” under the patent’s definition.
But Horne told jurors they had seen ample evidence that the device acts exactly like one: marketed as a health monitor, functioning like one, and dependent on Masimo’s patented pulse oximetry technology to deliver a critical heart-rate warning feature.
Horne reminded jurors of his prediction in opening statements: Apple would dodge the technical comparisons and instead latch onto semantics.
“The Apple Watch is designed to monitor a user’s pulse rate — that’s the monitor this claim requires,” Horne said. “The evidence was overwhelming.”
Apple: A Smartwatch Is Not a Medical Device
Apple’s lawyer, Joseph Mueller of WilmerHale, countered that the patent targets traditional patient monitors — devices that gather continuous data in medical settings — whereas the Apple Watch only triggers the disputed feature when a user is still for at least 10 minutes.
To illustrate, Mueller joked that emergency medics would hardly consult a tiny smartwatch screen instead of a legitimate medical monitor.
If the Apple Watch is not a patient monitor, he said, “it cannot meet the claim language.”
