The U.S. International Trade Commission rejected Masimo Corp.’s bid to reinstate an import ban on Apple Watch models, keeping the blood‑oxygen sensor intact.
The ruling matters because it safeguards a key health feature that drives consumer demand, protects Apple’s supply chain, and signals how U.S. trade authorities handle high‑tech patent disputes.
Masimo alleged that Apple’s blood‑oxygen sensor infringed its patents covering pulse‑oximetry technology. The company asked the ITC to revive a 2023 import ban, arguing that continued sales would cause ongoing patent violations. The commission, however, found no new basis to overturn its earlier decision and denied the request, effectively siding with Apple[2].
The ITC had previously blocked imports of Apple’s Series nine and Ultra two smartwatches in December 2023 after concluding those models infringed Masimo patents[1]. That earlier action temporarily halted sales of the newest watches until Apple made design changes.
On Friday, 12 April 2026, the ITC issued its final order, confirming that Apple’s current Watch designs do not infringe Masimo’s patents and that no additional import restrictions are warranted[2]. The decision closes the latest chapter of a multi‑year legal battle that has drawn attention from investors and regulators alike.
Apple has not commented on the ruling, and Masimo said it would not provide further details. Analysts said the outcome removes uncertainty for Apple’s product roadmap and may bolster confidence in the company’s ability to defend its innovations against patent challenges. The market is likely to view the decision as a win for Apple’s health‑tech strategy and for consumers who rely on the watch’s SpO₂ monitoring capability.
“The ITC’s decision preserves the blood‑oxygen sensor on Apple Watch.”
By refusing to reinstate the import ban, the ITC allows Apple to continue selling its current Watch lineup with the SpO₂ sensor, preserving a differentiated health feature and avoiding supply disruptions. The ruling also underscores the difficulty of overturning earlier patent findings, offering a precedent for future tech‑patent disputes in U.S. trade courts.
