The Mistrial Concludes Apple's Legal Dispute With Masimo Regarding Trade Secrets and Pulse Oximetry Technology
IOSFEATURED
The latest legal dispute between Apple and pulse oximetry company Masimo today ended in a mistrial, reports Bloomberg. The jury overseeing the case was not able to come to a final decision in its deliberations, causing U.S. district judge James Selna to declare a mistrial.
As per the report, six jurors favored ruling in favor of Apple, but one juror remained steadfast in support of Masimo, creating a deadlock in the case. The jurors had sent a message to the judge in the afternoon, inquiring about the course of action since the juror supporting Masimo refused to alter their stance.
At first, the judge intended to dismiss the jurors for the evening and continue deliberations on Tuesday. However, as they expressed their inability to reach a mutual agreement, he decided to conclude the case.
Over the past few weeks, Apple and Masimo were in litigation to ascertain whether Apple unlawfully hired Masimo's employees and misappropriated their trade secrets while developing the Apple Watch. Masimo aimed to receive more than $1.8 billion in compensation and shared ownership of five Apple pulse oximetry patents that, according to Masimo, utilized their technology.
According to the report, Apple recruited Chief Medical Officer Michael O'Reilly in July 2013 and Chief Technical Officer Marcelo Lamego of Cercacor (a Masimo spinoff company) in 2014. Masimo alleges that these two former employees shared Masimo's intellectual property in an inappropriate manner while developing the Apple Watch, which Apple refutes.
Throughout the trial, Masimo tried to prove that the development of the Apple Watch was facing difficulties before the recruitment of the two Masimo employees. To support its argument, Masimo referred to a 2013 email in which Bob Mansfield, a retired Apple executive, characterized the Apple Watch as "a mess" and predicted that the sensor would not succeed on its existing trajectory.
Apple asserted that it did not employ any Masimo intellectual property in the development of the Apple Watch, and furthermore, what Masimo considers "trade secrets" are notions that have been "widely recognized and used by various companies" for an extended period. Apple also suggested that Masimo had singled it out because Masimo saw the popularity of the Apple Watch and desired to produce its own smartwatch. As a matter of fact, Masimo launched a wearable device similar to the Apple Watch in late 2022 after focusing on large medical devices for healthcare for several years.
According to the report, Apple issued a statement stating that it intends to request the court to dismiss the accusations of misappropriating trade secrets. During the trial, five of Masimo's claims against Apple were dismissed, which resulted in a reduction of Masimo's anticipated compensation.
The statement expresses gratitude to the jury for their attentive consideration during the case. It emphasizes that Apple respects intellectual property and innovation and does not use confidential information from other companies. The statement also notes that the court rejected half of the trade secret allegations made by the plaintiffs and that Apple will seek the court's dismissal of the remaining claims.
The statement acknowledges disappointment that the jury was unable to reach a verdict and indicates that Masimo intends to retry the case and pursue legal action against Apple. At the same time, it mentions that the United States Trade Commission is set to decide in the coming months whether to prohibit the importation of specific models of the Apple Watch. This follows a previous ruling by an Administrative Law Judge that found Apple guilty of violating one of Masimo's patents for pulse oximetry.
Masimo had previously taken legal action against Apple for infringing on its patents, but most of the patents were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, leaving only two intact. In January, the United States International Trade Commission found that Apple had violated one of Masimo's patents, which is an ongoing case.
