The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a patent dispute between medical device manufacturer Masimo Corporation and technology giant Apple Inc. on January 16, 2026, after both parties agreed to end the litigation.
The court issued a brief order in *Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.* (Fed. Cir. 2026) stating that "the parties having so agreed," the proceeding is dismissed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The order specified that each side will bear their own costs, indicating no monetary settlement was disclosed as part of the agreement.
The case originated as an appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board in proceeding IPR2022-01299. Inter partes review proceedings allow third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, providing an alternative to federal court litigation for patent disputes.
The Federal Circuit noted that its dismissal order is "nonprecedential," meaning the decision cannot be cited as binding legal authority in future cases. This designation is standard for procedural dismissals that do not establish any legal precedent or resolve substantive patent law questions.
Masimo Corporation, based in Irvine, California, develops medical monitoring and measurement technologies, including pulse oximetry devices that measure blood oxygen levels. The company has been involved in multiple intellectual property disputes over its medical sensing technologies in recent years.
Apple Inc. has increasingly incorporated health monitoring features into its consumer electronics products, particularly the Apple Watch, which includes blood oxygen monitoring capabilities among other health sensors. This integration of medical-grade monitoring into consumer devices has created potential overlap with traditional medical device manufacturers' patent portfolios.
The voluntary dismissal suggests the parties reached some form of resolution outside of court, though the terms of any agreement remain confidential. Such settlements are common in complex patent litigation, allowing companies to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued appeals while potentially establishing licensing arrangements or other business accommodations.
Patent disputes in the technology and medical device sectors often involve multiple proceedings across different venues. Companies may simultaneously pursue cases in federal district courts, challenge patents through inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and appeal unfavorable decisions to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from both federal district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Established in 1982, the court was created specifically to provide uniformity in patent law interpretation and reduce forum shopping in intellectual property cases.
Inter partes review, the underlying proceeding in this case, was established under the America Invents Act of 2011 as part of broader patent system reforms. These proceedings allow parties to challenge patent validity based on prior art evidence, providing a faster and less expensive alternative to federal court litigation for certain patent disputes.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board decides whether to institute inter partes review based on a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on at least one challenged claim. If instituted, the board conducts a trial-like proceeding with discovery, expert testimony, and oral hearings before issuing a final written decision on patent validity.
Either party can appeal an adverse Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision to the Federal Circuit within 63 days. The appeals process allows for briefing and oral arguments before a three-judge panel, similar to other federal appellate proceedings.
The timing of this dismissal, coming relatively early in the appellate process, suggests the parties were able to negotiate a resolution without extensive Federal Circuit briefing or oral arguments. Such early settlements can benefit both sides by avoiding additional legal costs and the uncertainty of an appellate ruling.
For the broader technology industry, the dismissal removes potential precedential guidance on patent validity or infringement questions that might have emerged from a substantive Federal Circuit decision. However, the nonprecedential nature of the dismissal means it provides no guidance for future patent disputes involving similar technologies.
The resolution of *Masimo v. Apple* reflects the complex landscape of intellectual property disputes in the converging technology and healthcare sectors. As consumer electronics companies continue incorporating medical monitoring capabilities into their products, patent disputes between traditional medical device manufacturers and technology companies are likely to continue.
Neither Masimo nor Apple has publicly disclosed the terms of their agreement or provided statements regarding the dismissal. The case record shows only the procedural dismissal order, leaving the substantive resolution of their dispute confidential.