Doctrine of Equivalents Looms Large
Horne told jurors they could still find infringement even if they rejected Masimo’s patient-monitor interpretation. Under the doctrine of equivalents, he said, the Apple Watch could still infringe if it performs substantially the same function in the same way.
Masimo’s expert, engineer Vijay Madisetti, testified that Apple’s watch measures and records heart-rate data in a manner indistinguishable from Masimo’s patented method — and that the 10-minute stationary trigger is irrelevant because different patient monitors specialize in different events.
He likened Apple’s argument to dismissing a sleep-apnea monitor because it doesn’t work when someone is awake.
The Lawyers Behind the Battle
Masimo is represented by teams from Knobbe Martens and Sullivan & Cromwell.
Apple is backed by attorneys from WilmerHale, Gibson Dunn, and Haynes Boone.
With more verdicts pending and multiple appeals underway, Friday’s Apple $634M Verdict may mark only another turn in a legal war that shows no signs of slowing.
