Apple’s Patent War Over Apple Watch Lands in Federal Circuit Crosshairs

At the heart of Apple’s argument is a challenge to Masimo’s standing under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows companies to bring patent claims to the ITC only if they can demonstrate a “domestic industry” tied to the patented technology. Apple claims that Masimo had not actually begun selling a competing wearable device—its W1 smartwatch—at the time the complaint was filed in 2021, and therefore had not satisfied the domestic industry requirement.

Masimo, on the other hand, asserts that it had made significant investments in engineering, research, and development toward a smartwatch product that embodied the patented inventions. The company argues that it met the threshold by demonstrating a commitment to bringing the technology to market in the U.S., even if commercial sales had not yet begun.

The Federal Circuit panel seemed divided during the hearing. While one judge questioned whether Masimo’s efforts were enough to establish domestic industry, others acknowledged the difficulty of requiring full commercial readiness in the early stages of product development. The outcome could set an important precedent for future ITC investigations involving new or developing technologies.

This battle is only the latest episode in a bitter feud between Apple and Masimo, which has accused the iPhone maker of poaching its employees and stealing proprietary technology to incorporate into its own products. Apple, in turn, accuses Masimo of attempting to use regulatory processes to sideline a market rival it couldn’t outcompete directly.

The case underscores the growing role of the ITC as a battleground for tech companies fighting over patent rights. Unlike traditional patent litigation in federal court, ITC proceedings move faster and can result in powerful import bans that hit companies where it hurts most—their supply chains.