Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature

Apple has asked a U.S. federal appeals court to overturn an import ban on Apple Watch models with blood oxygen monitoring capabilities, arguing that the decision was based on a patent dispute involving an undeveloped competing product, Reuters reports.

apple watch series 6 product red back
On Monday, attorneys for Apple appeared before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest a 2023 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked imports of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in 2023 due to alleged patent infringement. The ban stemmed from a complaint filed by Masimo, a medical technology firm based in California, which accused Apple of violating its patents related to pulse oximetry — the measurement of blood oxygen saturation through non-invasive sensors.

Apple's legal counsel this week argued that the ITC's ruling was unjustified because, at the time Masimo filed its complaint in 2021, the company had not yet brought a competing product to market. Masimo's first smartwatch, the W1, which included blood oxygen tracking, was not released until 2022 — two years after Apple introduced the feature with the Apple Watch Series 6.

Apple maintains that Masimo's device was not market-ready when the company filed its complaint, and that the legal standard should not permit hypothetical products to justify trade restrictions. The decision had wrongly "deprived millions of Apple Watch users" of the blood-oxygen feature, Apple's attorney said.

Masimo's attorney countered that Apple was attempting to "rewrite the law" by asserting that the ITC should only block imports when a physical, commercialized product exists at the time of complaint filing.

The ITC originally ruled in Masimo's favor in October 2023, determining that Apple's implementation of blood oxygen measurement technology infringed several of Masimo's patents. As a result, the commission issued an exclusion order blocking imports of Apple Watch models that included the contested functionality. Following a brief stay granted by the Federal Circuit in December 2023, the import ban was reinstated in January 2024.

Apple subsequently modified its devices for the U.S. market, disabling the blood oxygen sensor in newly sold Series 9, Series 10, and Ultra 2 models in order to resume domestic sales without violating the order. International models retain full functionality.

The case remains under consideration by the Federal Circuit. A ruling is expected later this year.

Related Forum: Apple Watch

Popular Stories

modular ultra training load

watchOS 27 to Offer New Watch Faces, Including 'Modular Ultra' Variant

Monday May 4, 2026 5:58 am PDT by
For watchOS 27, Apple is testing new Apple Watch faces, and one of them is a simpler version of an existing Apple Watch Ultra watch face that could be coming to standard Series models. Writing in his latest Power On newsletter, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reports that Apple is testing multiple new faces for watchOS 27, code-named "Orchid." One of them is said to be a "simplified take" on the...
Apple Announces 2026 Pride Band Watch Face and iPhone Wallpaper Feature

Apple Announces 2026 Pride Band, Watch Face, and iPhone Wallpaper

Monday May 4, 2026 6:05 am PDT by
Apple today introduced its 2026 Pride Collection, including a new Apple Watch band, watch face, and a matching wallpaper for the iPhone and iPad. Apple said its Pride Collection celebrates LGBTQ+ communities around the world during Pride Month in June and beyond. In addition, the company noted that it is proud to financially support organizations that serve LGBTQ+ communities. The new Pri...
Apple Watch Ultra 2 Black Titanium

watchOS 26.5 Fixes Two Apple Watch Bugs

Tuesday May 5, 2026 7:56 am PDT by
watchOS 26.5 fixes two Apple Watch bugs, according to Apple's release notes for the update, which is expected to be released next week. Apple fixed bugs in the Messages and Workout apps:• Fixes an issue where Messages on Apple Watch may use SMS instead of iMessage when paired with a dual SIM iPhone • Fixes an issue where Workout app audio alerts could fail to play if the phone was not...

Top Rated Comments

jz0309 Avatar
12 months ago
Good luck Apple. A lot of users want that feature back.
Score: 28 Votes (Like | Disagree)
12 months ago
Apple, you need to either pay them or come up with your own thing. It’s been so many years now with no new health features.
Score: 26 Votes (Like | Disagree)
JPack Avatar
12 months ago

If the patent is valid, it doesn't matter whether or not Masimo had a working watch for sale at the time the complaint was filed, in my opinion.
True. And it actually shows how weak Apple's argument is.

Instead of going for a technical appeal of the patent, Apple is saying ITC made an administrative error when it said Masimo didn't have a product. That's not even a requirement. A product doesn't need to exist for a patent to be valid. The product can be under development or further investment.

Apple has zero technical arguments against the patent. This basically means Apple agrees they violated Masimo's patent.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Apple_Robert Avatar
12 months ago
If the patent is valid, it doesn't matter whether or not Masimo had a working watch for sale at the time the complaint was filed, in my opinion.
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kurtfoster Avatar
12 months ago
It’s about time.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
con2apple Avatar
12 months ago
Has anyone noticed that Apple only argues on an emotional level in court or in legal disputes?

With regard to the EU, Apple says that the DMA is interfering how the App Store works (which is a lie) and that the law confuses users and developers alike. (Which is completely irrelevant in court, even if it were true.)

Here, with regard to blood oxygen levels, Apple argues that there was no product yet (which is also completely irrelevant) and that millions of Apple users were wrongfully harmed because they did not get a feature.

This is the argument put forward by a corporation that protects hundreds of patents and designs every year. Some of these products never even make it to market.
And then there is also an attempt (as with the EU) to emotionally blackmail the court with the allegedly aggrieved Apple users. Except that Apple goes even further in the patent case and says in simple terms: "A user who does not get the feature we envision is aggrieved, even if they knew the feature did not exist."

What is actually going on at Apple?
Embarrassing marketing, designs that have been developed without considering the use in reality, and narcissistic arguments in court. It's as if factual arguments no longer count.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)