5 ms·

Jury rules Masimo smartwatches infringe Apple design patents

14 points by mgh2 2y ago

gnabgib 2y ago
Related: U.S. judge rules Apple Watch infringed Masimo's pulse oximeter patent (94 points, 2 years ago, 42 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34360292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34360292 Apple to Remove Blood-Oxygen Tool to Avoid Ban, Masimo Says (10 points, 9 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39004951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39004951 Masimo CEO Joe Kiani resigns amid legal dispute with Apple (7 points, 1 month ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41652504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41652504
- e40 2y ago
  I hope they exchange patents and kiss and make up, so the pulse oximeter can be enabled again on the Apple watch.
foundart 2y ago
The impact would appear to be low for Apple and good for Masimo. Only $250 in damages awarded. More importantly, as the article says: > Masimo touts the jury’s ruling as a victory as Apple failed to win an injunction. “Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo’s current products, and the jury’s verdict is a victory for Masimo on that issue,” the company said in a statement.
- jsyang00 2y ago
  I don't understand how the award is only $250? Isn't there some market standard for determining the damage amount
  - soul_grafitti 2y ago
    It's a jury trial Jake.
  - notatoad 2y ago
    apple only claimed $250 damages. they got what they were asking for.
  - borski 2y ago
    $250 in damages is the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States. > Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling. On this point, they lost.
  - pizza234 2y ago
    > But the jury awarded [...] $250 in damages - the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States. > Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling. Based on this intent, Masimo's statement: > Masimo touts the jury’s ruling as a victory as Apple failed to win an injunction. is appropriate.

14 points by mgh2 2y ago

Related: U.S. judge rules Apple Watch infringed Masimo's pulse oximeter patent (94 points, 2 years ago, 42 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34360292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34360292 Apple to Remove Blood-Oxygen Tool to Avoid Ban, Masimo Says (10 points, 9 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39004951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39004951 Masimo CEO Joe Kiani resigns amid legal dispute with Apple (7 points, 1 month ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41652504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41652504

e40 2y ago
I hope they exchange patents and kiss and make up, so the pulse oximeter can be enabled again on the Apple watch.

foundart 2y ago

The impact would appear to be low for Apple and good for Masimo. Only $250 in damages awarded. More importantly, as the article says: > Masimo touts the jury’s ruling as a victory as Apple failed to win an injunction. “Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo’s current products, and the jury’s verdict is a victory for Masimo on that issue,” the company said in a statement.

jsyang00 2y ago
I don't understand how the award is only $250? Isn't there some market standard for determining the damage amount
- soul_grafitti 2y ago
  It's a jury trial Jake.
- notatoad 2y ago
  apple only claimed $250 damages. they got what they were asking for.
- borski 2y ago
  $250 in damages is the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States. > Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling. On this point, they lost.
- pizza234 2y ago
  > But the jury awarded [...] $250 in damages - the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States. > Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling. Based on this intent, Masimo's statement: > Masimo touts the jury’s ruling as a victory as Apple failed to win an injunction. is appropriate.