(Adds company comments in paragraphs 4-6, context in paragraphs
3 and 7-9)
By Blake Brittain
Oct 25 (Reuters) - Apple AAPL.O convinced a federal
jury on Friday that health monitoring tech company Masimo's
MASI.O smartwatches infringe two of its design patents.
The jury, in Delaware, agreed with Apple that Masimo's W1
and Freedom watches and chargers willfully violated Apple's
patent rights in smartwatch designs, awarding the tech giant
$250 in damages. Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate
purpose" of its lawsuit was to win an injunction against sales
of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
The jury also determined that Masimo's watches did not
infringe Apple patents covering smartwatch inventions that the
tech giant had accused Masimo of copying.
Masimo said in a statement that the company appreciated the
jury's verdict "in favor of Masimo and against Apple on nearly
all issues," and that the decision only applied to a
"discontinued module and charger."
"Apple primarily sought an injunction against Masimo's
current products, and the jury's verdict is a victory for Masimo
on that issue," Masimo said.
Apple said in a statement that it was "glad the jury's
decision today will protect the innovations we advance on behalf
of our customers."
Irvine, California-based Masimo accused Apple of hiring
away its employees and stealing its pulse oximetry technology
after discussing a potential collaboration. Masimo convinced the
U.S. International Trade Commission last year to block imports
of Apple's Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches after the
commission found that their technology for reading blood oxygen
levels infringed Masimo's patents.
Apple has appealed the decision and resumed selling the
watches after removing the technology. The tech giant
countersued Masimo for patent infringement in 2022, alleging
that Masimo copied Apple Watch features to use in its
smartwatches.
Apple also accused Masimo of using lawsuits at the ITC
and in California to "make way for Masimo's own watch." Masimo
said Apple's patent lawsuit was "retaliatory" and "an attempt to
avoid the court in which the parties have been litigating their
dispute."
(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Leslie
Adler and Rosalba O'Brien)
((blake.brittain@tr.com; +1 (202) 938-5713))