IP Law Daily, PATENT—C.D. Cal.: Apple ordered to pay over $634 million for infringing pulse-monitoring patent, (Jul 22, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

A jury found Apple infringed four claims of Masimo’s physiological-monitoring patent, while the court separately found misappropriation of two trade secrets but denied Masimo additional monetary and injunctive relief.

A federal district court in California has entered a final judgment requiring Apple Inc. to pay $634,313,913 for infringing four claims of a Masimo Corporation patent covering physiological-monitoring technology. The court adopted a jury’s finding that Apple infringed claims 11 through 14 of the patent and concluded that the asserted claims were not invalid, although Apple’s infringement was not willful. Separately resolving trade secret, patent ownership, and inventorship claims after a bench trial, the court found that Apple misappropriated two Masimo trade secrets but denied an injunction, attorney fees, and monetary relief on those claims. Apple prevailed on the remaining asserted trade secrets and all patent ownership and inventorship claims (Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2026)).

Background. Apple is a consumer technology company that designs and sells electronic devices, including the Apple Watch. Masimo and its affiliate Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. develop non-invasive patient-monitoring technology, including systems that use optical signals to measure blood oxygen levels and other physiological parameters.

The litigation arose after Apple sought to expand its capabilities in non-invasive physiological monitoring. Apple and Masimo executives met in May 2013 to discuss a possible collaboration, and Apple internally described Masimo’s products as a “golden reference” because of their accuracy. No acquisition or formal collaboration followed. Instead, Apple pursued what internal materials described as “smart recruiting” and hired several Masimo employees with relevant technical experience, including former Masimo chief technology officer Marcelo Lamego.

Masimo alleged that Apple infringed its patents, misappropriated trade secrets through the recruitment of its employees, and improperly obtained patents naming Apple personnel as inventors. The sprawling action ultimately proceeded through separate jury and bench trials. The patent portion concerned U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776 (the ’776 patent), which broadly relates to optical physiological monitoring and pulse oximetry technology incorporated into wearable consumer devices.

Patent verdict. On November 14, 2025, the jury unanimously found that Apple infringed claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the ’776 patent. It awarded Masimo a reasonable royalty of $634,313,913.

The July 20, 2026, final judgment formally entered the jury’s verdict. The court also held as a matter of law that claims 11 through 14 were not invalid. However, it found that Apple’s infringement was not willful, thereby foreclosing enhanced damages for deliberate infringement. The judgment leaves prejudgment and post-judgment interest unresolved because the parties are still briefing those issues.

Also, in a related ruling, in March 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act by importing and selling Apple Watch devices that infringed patents covering wearable blood oxygen measurement technology. The appellate court upheld the Commission’s findings that the patent holder satisfied the domestic industry requirement, that Apple’s products infringed the asserted claims, and that the claims were not invalid for lack of written description or obviousness (see ITC’s exclusion order against Apple Watch imports over pulse oximetry patents affirmed, (Mar. 20, 2026)).

Trade secrets. The court separately addressed Masimo’s claims under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act following a bench trial. By that stage, the disputed trade secrets included L4, L5, D1, D3, and D10, along with additional hospital interaction, business, and marketing information.

The court found that Apple misappropriated L4 and L5. The findings describe L4 as involving a testing procedure used to identify “light piping,” a phenomenon in which light reaches a photodetector without passing through the user’s tissue and can therefore interfere with physiological measurements. The court found that Masimo possessed the relevant portions of the technique, that the information derived economic value from not being generally known, and that Masimo took reasonable measures to preserve its secrecy.

Circumstantial evidence supported the finding that Lamego disclosed L4 after joining Apple and that Apple acquired and used the information. The court noted that direct evidence of trade secret theft is uncommon and found Apple’s general denials insufficient to overcome evidence surrounding its recruitment of Lamego, the technical ideas he supplied soon after joining, and subsequent changes to Apple’s testing procedures. It also found that Apple acquired, used, and disclosed L5.

The court accordingly entered declaratory judgment against Apple on L4 and L5. It nevertheless denied Masimo’s request for an injunction because the medical technology companies failed to establish irreparable harm or the absence of an adequate monetary remedy. It also denied attorney fees and held that Masimo had waived, or was estopped from seeking, monetary recovery for misappropriation, including lost profits, unjust enrichment, a reasonable royalty, and exemplary damages.

Apple prevailed on the remaining trade secret claims. The court found no misappropriation of one hospital-interaction trade secret and concluded that the other hospital-interaction, business, marketing, value-assessment, and D-series information was not cognizable as trade secrets because Masimo either did not possess the claimed information or failed to show that it derived independent economic value from remaining secret.

Patent ownership. Masimo also sought correction of inventorship and declarations of ownership involving U.S. Patent Nos. 10,078,052; 10,247,670; 9,952,095; 10,219,754; and 11,009,390. The claims rested on allegations that work performed by former Masimo personnel either made Masimo’s scientist a co-inventor or created ownership obligations in Masimo’s favor.

The court entered judgment for Apple on all ownership and inventorship claims. It also dismissed with prejudice all remaining causes of action—including patent infringement, ownership, inventorship, and trade secret theories that were not presented at trial.

The mixed final judgment therefore gave Masimo its principal monetary victory on infringement of the ’776 patent and declaratory relief on two trade secrets, while Apple defeated willfulness, most of the trade secret case, all disputed ownership and inventorship claims, and Masimo’s requests for additional trade secret remedies.

The Case is No. 8:20-cv-00048-JVS-JDE.

Judge: Selna, J.

Attorneys: David C. McMullen (Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for Masimo Corp. Marc Robert Lewis (Lewis and Llewellyn LLP) for Apple Inc.

Companies: Masimo Corp.; Apple Inc.

Cases: Patent TradeSecrets TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews GCNNews