Masimo has also requested attorney fees, alleging that Apple’s actions were malicious and intentionally aimed at exploiting confidential information.
Apple: Masimo’s Claims Lack Evidence
Apple argues that Masimo has failed to substantiate its allegations over the course of the five-year litigation, dismissing Masimo’s trade secrets as either trivial or already known in the industry.
“Plaintiffs have had two chances—and five years—to back up their spurious claims that Apple stole their supposed intellectual property,” Apple said in its brief, urging the court to reject the claims entirely.
Apple maintains that the work on its optical health sensor began before Lamego joined the company in 2014 and asserts that Lamego’s contributions were minimal. Furthermore, Apple claims it explicitly instructed Lamego not to use proprietary information from his former employers while at Apple.
Apple also argued that Masimo’s trade secret claims have dwindled over time and now rest on just three elements: “black foam, a short circuit, and an algorithm ill-suited to wearable devices.” Apple insists these do not constitute protectable trade secrets and contends that Masimo has no evidence linking them to Apple’s smartwatch technology.
ITC Ruling and Broader Context
The dispute traces back to 2013, when Apple explored a potential partnership with Masimo on photoplethysmography technology, which monitors health metrics using light. Apple ultimately recruited Masimo employees instead, leading to claims of intellectual property theft.
