Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Wins Another Round in AliveCor Legal Battle Over Heart Rate Tech

Apple this week secured another victory in its ongoing legal dispute with heart monitoring company AliveCor, after a federal appeals court upheld a 2024 ruling that found Apple's changes to the Apple Watch were lawful product improvements rather than anticompetitive behavior.

Kardia Band apple watch
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that rejected AliveCor's antitrust claims. AliveCor had argued that Apple illegally monopolized the market for heart rate analysis apps on watchOS when it replaced its Heart Rate during Physical Observation (HRPO) algorithm with its heart rate neural network (HRNN) algorithm in watchOS 5.

AliveCor claimed that Apple changed the algorithm so that its ECG KardiaBand could no longer identify irregular heart rhythms – as part of an alleged effort to "eliminate opposition" in the heart rate analysis space – and requested that it reinstate the old algorithm.

Apple argued that AliveCor did not have the right to dictate Apple's design decisions, and that the request to support the older heart rate technology would require the court to be a day-to-day enforcer of how Apple engineers its products. The court ultimately agreed with Apple.

The Ninth Circuit has now affirmed Apple's victory. "The undisputed evidence shows as a matter of law that Apple's refusal to share HRPO data was not anticompetitive," the court wrote. It added that even if some form of heart rate data access were essential for competing in the market, AliveCor's claim would still fail because Apple provides app developers with access to the same Tachogram API data that Apple's Irregular Rhythm Notification feature uses.

The appeals court also rejected AliveCor's argument that Apple had a duty to share its proprietary data with competitors. The ruling said that antitrust laws generally impose no obligation for companies to deal with their rivals. It also noted that such a requirement "would implicate the same concerns regarding incentives to innovate and judicial competency that the Supreme Court has articulated."

The decision is Apple's second major win against AliveCor within the last year. In March, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidation of three AliveCor patents related to heart rate monitoring, vacating an International Trade Commission ruling that could have led to an Apple Watch import ban.

AliveCor said at the time of the court's original ruling that it was "deeply disappointed" by the decision and would continue to explore all available legal options, including potential appeals.

Popular Stories

iphone 16 teal

'Siri AI' Lawsuit Update: Apple to Pay Owners of These iPhone Models

Thursday July 9, 2026 7:08 am PDT by
In May, Apple agreed to pay $250 million to settle a U.S. class action lawsuit over Siri AI's delayed launch, and eligible iPhone users could receive up to a $95 payout. This week, the California court overseeing the case held a hearing regarding preliminary approval of the settlement, but the judge has not yet issued a ruling. It will likely be at least a few more months before eligible...
OpenAI vs Apple Feature

Apple Sues OpenAI for Stealing Trade Secrets to Build AI Hardware

Friday July 10, 2026 1:30 pm PDT by
Apple today accused OpenAI of stealing Apple trade secrets and intellectual property in its effort to develop an AI hardware device. In a lawsuit filed with the Northern District of California, Apple said it uncovered evidence of a months-long scheme to steal confidential information. Apple says OpenAI hardware lead and former Apple designer Tang Tan and former electrical engineer Chang Liu...
Apple OpenAI

OpenAI Responds After Being Sued by Apple

Saturday July 11, 2026 4:57 am PDT by
OpenAI has responded after being sued by Apple over alleged theft of the iPhone maker's trade secrets. "We have no interest in other companies' trade secrets," said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. "We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people...

Top Rated Comments

8 months ago
You know, Apple has brought significant consumer value to the Apple Watch, both with Blood Oxygen and ECG. These provide valuable medical information to the users, at a low cost, because it's bundled in with a device they already have. The key value is that people don't need to pay extra / get an add-on, and because of that, the technology gets to a lot more people. After all, you don't buy an ECG / heart rate monitoring device specifically unless you know you have/had an irregular heartbeat.

But by adding it to a watch you're buying anyway, now there's an opportunity for people to catch these arrhythmias early, when they first happen, and do something about it.

AliveCor makes the Kardia device. I've owned two of them, and currently pay a subscription fee to them. Why? I had problems in the past, and the fact that they have a device that can do a 6-lead ECG is worth it.

Companies like AliveCor and Masimo should focus on their value-add, and build on what Apple's brought to the everyday consumer, who would never be their customer anyway.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
vegetassj4 Avatar
8 months ago
Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?



Attachment Image
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
8 months ago
AliveCor expecting Apple to reengineer its mass-market products to accommodate its extremely niche accessory is peak clown behavior.
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
8 months ago

Could our elected officials focus on addressing patent trolls among other things and not on TDS?
You don't know what a patent troll is.

AliveCor is a legit company with legit products. And they even came first. But somehow Apple got away with all this.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
8 months ago

Apple would never, ever, ever try to monopolize a market. They hold hands and sing kumbaya with all of their competitors.

Does this look like the face of a ruthless monopolist?


They can’t monopolize any market that doesn’t include one of their trademarks in the market definition. They’re just not that well used worldwide. Can they monopolize, say, Apple Keynote? Well, sure, because it’s Apple’s Keynote. They can’t monopolize “presentation software”, though, and I don’t think anyone would seriously expect that they could. :)

But, most wouldn’t call something like that a monopoly, anyway. It’d be more accurate to describe it as a “product or service they sell,” which is the same for any product or service they have registered a trademark for.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
HouseLannister Avatar
8 months ago
Oh good, I was worried the lawyers' children were going to go hungry this winter!
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)