5 ms·

Do the $15 pulse oximiters that can be found on Amazon also infringe on these patents?

by pushedx 3y ago

adolph 3y ago
That is a legal question that depends on how much revenue is generated by said companies.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Not really. $15 pulse oximeters on Amazon are coming straight out of China from fly by night companies in a country that doesn't particularly care about IP law, and even when they do make it amazingly hard for a foreign company with even the most absolute, solid, novel patents to fight against a Chinese company blatantly and openly infringing. Trying to frame this as a money grab from Masimo is overly defensive of Apple.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    None of these pulse oximeters on Amazon from China are violating these worn device patents because those pulse oximeters don't use an array of emitters, and heavily process the reflected light results. Wearable pulse ox is an entirely different tech stack as finger clamp pulse ox.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Yeah finger clamps shine through the finger completely. They don't use reflected light. They are much more accurate for this reason but also more annoying to wear. I think the only daily-wearable one that works this way is the Oura ring. I'm surprised how well it still works on a watch though. I never tried Apple's implementation as I don't have an apple phone to pair it with, but my galaxy watch 6's SpO2 works pretty decently compared to a finger clamp one, considering it is much harder to do it on the wrist.
- c0pium 3y ago
  Or trifling matters like clips working on an entirely different principle (transmission vice reflection) than the method which remains patent encumbered.
  - adolph 3y ago
    Certainly it works on a different principle than that which is patented. At the same time, IANAL, and if the stakes are large enough the question might need an adjudicated answer.
    - c0pium 3y ago
      Adjudicated answers, also known as patents, have been separately issued for these very different techniques to accomplish the same underlying goal. The transmission patents are expired for quite sometime however, which is why devices using them can be made cheaply.
1123581321 3y ago
They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)
- hedora 3y ago
  The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway, the clip on one’s probably don’t use the algorithms from 1989 or and whatever is in the patent, since the innovation was using a flat detector instead of a clip. Clips were working fine for 20 years before SET.
  - Godel_unicode 3y ago
    Clips work by observing transmission of light through the finger being absorbed by oxygen-carrying blood as opposed to the single chip wearable which depends on measuring reflected light. Different techniques, different patents.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Thanks for explaining this! I was wondering why "clip on" vs "wrist worn" would matter, and your comment cleared it up.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    "17 years from issuance" is ancient. It's been "20 years from filing date" for > 25 years now.
- 3y ago
thaumasiotes 3y ago
Here is the ruling against Apple: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC-ruling.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC... The relevant patent claims are identified: > the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent. (Many more claims were included in the complaint, but Apple didn't lose on those claims.) These are the '502 and '648 patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en > 22. The user-worn device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of emitters comprise at least four emitters, and wherein each of the plurality of emitters comprises a respective set of at least three LEDs. > 28. [This is one of the base descriptions; too long to pull as a quote.] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en > 12. The user-worn device of claim 8, wherein the physiological parameter comprises oxygen or oxygen saturation. > 24. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping. > 30. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion further comprises one or more chamfered edges. The easiest way to avoid this set of patents appears to be to use less than three LEDs. I assume that will produce a more unreliable reading, but increasing the number of LEDs does not appear to be considered an "obvious" approach to that problem.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  More than four would increase cost and wouldn’t necessarily be more accurate. I believe each LED emits Red, Blue or Infrared. But these Apple Watches are not approved by the FDA as medical devices and are less accurate than a pulse oxomiter. Even FitBit doesn’t try to fool anyone. So what’s the real market to add in measuring oxygen levels? Wellness? You have to not move to use it and we already know the measurements are not accurate. Feels like they added it to sell more watches and seems like they really bought the farm this time

Do the $15 pulse oximiters that can be found on Amazon also infringe on these patents?

adolph 3y ago

That is a legal question that depends on how much revenue is generated by said companies.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Not really. $15 pulse oximeters on Amazon are coming straight out of China from fly by night companies in a country that doesn't particularly care about IP law, and even when they do make it amazingly hard for a foreign company with even the most absolute, solid, novel patents to fight against a Chinese company blatantly and openly infringing. Trying to frame this as a money grab from Masimo is overly defensive of Apple.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  None of these pulse oximeters on Amazon from China are violating these worn device patents because those pulse oximeters don't use an array of emitters, and heavily process the reflected light results. Wearable pulse ox is an entirely different tech stack as finger clamp pulse ox.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Yeah finger clamps shine through the finger completely. They don't use reflected light. They are much more accurate for this reason but also more annoying to wear. I think the only daily-wearable one that works this way is the Oura ring. I'm surprised how well it still works on a watch though. I never tried Apple's implementation as I don't have an apple phone to pair it with, but my galaxy watch 6's SpO2 works pretty decently compared to a finger clamp one, considering it is much harder to do it on the wrist.
c0pium 3y ago
Or trifling matters like clips working on an entirely different principle (transmission vice reflection) than the method which remains patent encumbered.
- adolph 3y ago
  Certainly it works on a different principle than that which is patented. At the same time, IANAL, and if the stakes are large enough the question might need an adjudicated answer.
  - c0pium 3y ago
    Adjudicated answers, also known as patents, have been separately issued for these very different techniques to accomplish the same underlying goal. The transmission patents are expired for quite sometime however, which is why devices using them can be made cheaply.

1123581321 3y ago

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

hedora 3y ago
The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway, the clip on one’s probably don’t use the algorithms from 1989 or and whatever is in the patent, since the innovation was using a flat detector instead of a clip. Clips were working fine for 20 years before SET.
- Godel_unicode 3y ago
  Clips work by observing transmission of light through the finger being absorbed by oxygen-carrying blood as opposed to the single chip wearable which depends on measuring reflected light. Different techniques, different patents.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Thanks for explaining this! I was wondering why "clip on" vs "wrist worn" would matter, and your comment cleared it up.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  "17 years from issuance" is ancient. It's been "20 years from filing date" for > 25 years now.
3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

Here is the ruling against Apple: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC-ruling.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC... The relevant patent claims are identified: > the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent. (Many more claims were included in the complaint, but Apple didn't lose on those claims.) These are the '502 and '648 patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en > 22. The user-worn device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of emitters comprise at least four emitters, and wherein each of the plurality of emitters comprises a respective set of at least three LEDs. > 28. [This is one of the base descriptions; too long to pull as a quote.] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en > 12. The user-worn device of claim 8, wherein the physiological parameter comprises oxygen or oxygen saturation. > 24. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping. > 30. The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion further comprises one or more chamfered edges. The easiest way to avoid this set of patents appears to be to use less than three LEDs. I assume that will produce a more unreliable reading, but increasing the number of LEDs does not appear to be considered an "obvious" approach to that problem.

firesteelrain 3y ago
More than four would increase cost and wouldn’t necessarily be more accurate. I believe each LED emits Red, Blue or Infrared. But these Apple Watches are not approved by the FDA as medical devices and are less accurate than a pulse oxomiter. Even FitBit doesn’t try to fool anyone. So what’s the real market to add in measuring oxygen levels? Wellness? You have to not move to use it and we already know the measurements are not accurate. Feels like they added it to sell more watches and seems like they really bought the farm this time