Apple Watch Pulse Oximetry Can Be Reactivated Through Software in 2028 or With Successful Appeal

Apple has been selling the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 without the blood oxygen monitoring feature in the U.S. since mid-January, and while we've suspected Apple would be able to reintroduce pulse oximetry in models that lack it through a future software update, new information from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) confirms that reactivation is indeed a possibility. As a recap, Apple was found to be infringing on patented pulse oximetry technology owned by Masimo, and was banned from importing the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 into the U.S.

apple watch ultra yellow
The original January 12 order from CBP that allowed Apple to bring Apple Watch models with a disabled sensor in the United States was published recently (via ip fray), and it gives some insight into how Apple disabled pulse oximetry. While some of the order is redacted, Apple implemented a fix that turns off pulse oximetry when an Apple Watch is paired to an iPhone. Blood oxygen sensing becomes inaccessible to the user, and opening the blood oxygen app gives a warning that the feature is not available. Apple said that it hardcoded each Apple Watch at the factory with new software.

As part of the process to get approval to sell Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models without pulse oximetry enabled, Apple had to provide the code disabling the feature and test devices to Masimo. Masimo didn't want Apple to have such an easy fix, so it paired the "redesigned" Apple Watches with a jailbroken ‌iPhone‌ running an older version of iOS, and was able to get pulse oximetry working.

Masimo tried to argue that activating pulse oximetry through a jailbroken phone meant Apple had not effectively removed the feature and the devices should not be allowed to be imported in to the U.S. Masimo also tried to say that jailbreaking is "permissible, common, and readily known," but Masimo's arguments were unsuccessful. The Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ultimately decided that disabling pulse oximetry in the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 was enough to avoid infringing on Masimo patents, allowing those models to be offered for sale at Apple retail stores in the U.S.

Because Masimo was able to get blood oxygen sensing working using software on a jailbroken ‌iPhone‌, Apple too would be able to reactivate the blood oxygen sensor in the models where it has been disabled through a software update. When no longer subject to an import ban, Apple will be able to reintroduce blood oxygen sensing for Apple Watch Series 9 and ‌Apple Watch Ultra 2‌ users who are not able to access the feature.

As noted by ip fray, the patents that Apple was found to have infringed on expire in August of 2028, which means that Apple will be able to re-enable pulse oximetry in affected models at that time. Apple filed an appeal with the United States International Trade Commission to attempt to get the ruling overturned, so if the appeal is successful, Apple could be able to re-add blood oxygen sensing sooner.

Apple could also opt to settle with Masimo and work out a licensing deal, but at this point, it doesn't sound like that is going to happen. Masimo CEO Joe Kiani said in January that he had not spoken with Apple, and while he would be open to settling, an apology and an "honest dialogue" would need to be part of any settlement discussion.

Kiani has maligned the Apple Watch blood oxygen sensor several times, saying that customers are "better off without" the feature because it is not a "reliable, medical pulse oximeter."

The Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 only have disabled blood oxygen sensing capabilities in the United States, as the ban is not applicable in other countries. The Apple Watches remain fully functional outside of the U.S.

Popular Stories

iphone 16 display

iPhone 17's Scratch Resistant Anti-Reflective Display Coating Canceled

Monday April 28, 2025 12:48 pm PDT by
Apple may have canceled the super scratch resistant anti-reflective display coating that it planned to use for the iPhone 17 Pro models, according to a source with reliable information that spoke to MacRumors. Last spring, Weibo leaker Instant Digital suggested Apple was working on a new anti-reflective display layer that was more scratch resistant than the Ceramic Shield. We haven't heard...
apple watch ultra yellow

What's Next for the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Apple Watch SE 3

Friday April 25, 2025 2:44 pm PDT by
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Apple Watch, which launched on April 24, 2015. Yesterday, we recapped features rumored for the Apple Watch Series 11, but since 2015, the Apple Watch has also branched out into the Apple Watch Ultra and the Apple Watch SE, so we thought we'd take a look at what's next for those product lines, too. 2025 Apple Watch Ultra 3 Apple didn't update the...
iPhone 17 Air Pastel Feature

iPhone 17 Reaches Key Milestone Ahead of Mass Production

Monday April 28, 2025 8:44 am PDT by
Apple has completed Engineering Validation Testing (EVT) for at least one iPhone 17 model, according to a paywalled preview of an upcoming DigiTimes report. iPhone 17 Air mockup based on rumored design The EVT stage involves Apple testing iPhone 17 prototypes to ensure the hardware works as expected. There are still DVT (Design Validation Test) and PVT (Production Validation Test) stages to...
Beyond iPhone 13 Better Blue

20th Anniversary iPhone Likely to Be Made in China Due to 'Extraordinarily Complex' Design

Monday April 28, 2025 4:29 am PDT by
Apple will likely manufacture its 20th anniversary iPhone models in China, despite broader efforts to shift production to India, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. In 2027, Apple is planning a "major shake-up" for the iPhone lineup to mark two decades since the original model launched. Gurman's previous reporting indicates the company will introduce a foldable iPhone alongside a "bold"...
iPhone 17 Air Pastel Feature

iPhone 17 Air Launching Later This Year With These 16 New Features

Thursday April 24, 2025 8:24 am PDT by
While the so-called "iPhone 17 Air" is not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the ultra-thin device. Overall, the iPhone 17 Air sounds like a mixed bag. While the device is expected to have an impressively thin and light design, rumors indicate it will have some compromises compared to iPhone 17 Pro models, including only a single rear camera, a...
iPhone 17 Pro Blue Feature Tighter Crop

iPhone 17 Pro Launching Later This Year With These 13 New Features

Wednesday April 23, 2025 8:31 am PDT by
While the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models as of April 2025: Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an aluminum frame, whereas the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro models have a titanium frame, and the iPhone ...
iphone 17 air iphone 16 pro

iPhone 17 Air USB-C Port May Have This Unusual Design Quirk

Wednesday April 30, 2025 3:59 am PDT by
Apple is preparing to launch a dramatically thinner iPhone this September, and if recent leaks are anything to go by, the so-called iPhone 17 Air could boast one of the most radical design shifts in recent years. iPhone 17 Air dummy model alongside iPhone 16 Pro (credit: AppleTrack) At just 5.5mm thick (excluding a slightly raised camera bump), the 6.6-inch iPhone 17 Air is expected to become ...

Top Rated Comments

bozzykid Avatar
15 months ago

patent trolls are the worst
Masimo isn't a patent troll.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TheLisnakFactor Avatar
15 months ago
I’m so confused. So these guys say you infringed on our patents and because of that made an unreliable sensor? Sounds like some stupid logic to me.
Score: 29 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MacDevil7334 Avatar
15 months ago
Masimo’s licensing fee must be exorbitant because it really seems like it would be in Apple’s interest to settle at this point.
Score: 27 Votes (Like | Disagree)
CrysisDeu Avatar
15 months ago
So basically not gonna happen before your series 9 becomes legacy product
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kc9hzn Avatar
15 months ago

Masimo isn't a patent troll.
Yes and no. While they do have products on the market (which means that they don’t qualify under the traditional definition of patent troll), when you look at their complaint, it looks like they’re trying to enforce a patent (an expired one, I might add) on the very idea of a pulse oximeter. Overly broad patents held by a firm with significant market power in captured markets (the highly regulated market for professional grade pulse oximeters, ie for hospitals and the like) weaponizing patents against would be competitors in the consumer space would probably qualify as a patent troll in most people’s eyes.

Masimo claims that Apple wouldn’t have been able to bring the sensor to market without having poached employees, though Masimo doesn’t actually seem to be pursuing any legal action on those grounds or corporate espionage grounds, only the patent grounds. (Also, in California, non-compete and anti-poaching clauses are unenforceable, and both companies are based in California.) Masimo also happens to be a very well connected business politically (good ol’ regulatory capture, no doubt), so, while Apple has a substantially bigger market cap than Masimo, this is hardly David vs Goliath. It’s more like, for lack of a better analogy, Goliath vs Achilles.
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Apollo68 Avatar
15 months ago
For anyone who doesn't seem to understand what a patent troll is, here is a brief primer. A Non-producing entity, known colloquially as a patent troll, is an individual or business entity that holds onto an intellectual proprerty portfolio with the intentions of using them to profit through litigation. They have no intention of actually commercializing anything in their portfolio. Masimo does actually bring devices using the patent in question to market. You cannot just call a company a patent troll in good faith because they are asserting their IP rights.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)