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

Multicolored Low Cost A18 Pro MacBook Feature

Apple Accidentally Leaks 'MacBook Neo'

Tuesday March 3, 2026 7:00 am PST by
Apple appears to have prematurely revealed the name of its rumored lower-cost MacBook model, which is expected to be announced this Wednesday. A regulatory document for a "MacBook Neo" (Model A3404) has appeared on Apple's website. Unfortunately, there are no further details or images available yet. While the PDF file does not contain the "MacBook Neo" name, it briefly appeared in a link...
imac video apple feature

Apple Unveils Two New Products

Monday March 2, 2026 7:49 am PST by
Apple today introduced two new devices, including the iPhone 17e and an updated iPad Air. iPhone 17e features the same overall design as the iPhone 16e, but it gains Apple's A19 chip, MagSafe for magnetic wireless charging and magnetic accessories, Apple's second-generation C1X modem for faster 5G, and a doubled 256GB of base storage. In the U.S., the iPhone 17e starts at $599, just like the ...
Apple iPhone 17e feature

Apple Announces iPhone 17e With A19 Chip, MagSafe, and More

Monday March 2, 2026 6:07 am PST by
Apple today announced the iPhone 17e, featuring the A19 chip, MagSafe connectivity, faster charging, and more. The iPhone 17e contains the A19 chip introduced in iPhone 17. It features a 6-core GPU and a 4-core GPU. Apple pointed out that this makes it up to 2x faster than the iPhone 11. The new 16-core Neural Engine is optimized for large generative models. The iPhone 17e also contains...

Top Rated Comments

jz0309 Avatar
9 months ago
Good luck Apple. A lot of users want that feature back.
Score: 28 Votes (Like | Disagree)
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 months ago
It’s about time.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
con2apple Avatar
9 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)