Recent activity within the U.S. judicial system has produced sharply divergent outcomes for Apple Inc. in its ongoing intellectual property battles. The company has secured a significant procedural win at the Supreme Court even as a federal jury delivered a substantial infringement verdict against it. Taken together, these decisions underscore the complex and often unpredictable path of high-stakes patent litigation for major technology firms.

Supreme Court Declines Gesture Technology Partners Appeal, Affirming Victory for Apple, Google, and LG

Apple, alongside Google and LG Electronics, solidified a decisive win when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a patent appeal brought by Gesture Technology Partners (GTP).

The Dispute

GTP had originally claimed that Apple infringed several of its U.S. Patents relating to camera-based sensing and gesture-control technology. In response to this allegation, Apple filed a petition for review by the USPTO’s Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB), requesting that the patents be held invalid. This is exactly what the PTAB found and after an initial appeal by GTP that finding of invalidity was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. GTP sought to overturn that ruling by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. Notably, the patent had already expired in 2020, before the litigation reached the Supreme Court stage. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patents No. 8,194,924, 7,933,431, 8,878,949, and 8,553,079.

The Decision

By denying to review the case at all, the Supreme Court allowed the lower court’s finding of invalidity to stand, effectively closing the matter.

The Consequence

The ruling reaffirms the strength of administrative review mechanisms, such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in challenging and invalidating patents, even when those patents are older or no longer in force.

Federal Jury Awards Masimo $634 Million in Infringement Case Against Apple

In stark contrast to the Supreme Court outcome, a federal jury in California ordered Apple to pay $634 million to medical-device company Masimo Corporation. The jury found that Apple infringed Masimo’s patented pulse-oximetry technology through features in the Apple Watch, including workout mode and high heart-rate notifications.

The Basis for Infringement

Jurors concluded that Apple violated one of Masimo’s patents, with the damages calculation reflecting roughly 43 million Apple Watch units sold over a defined two-year period.

The Broader Context

This verdict marks a major development in the long-running intellectual property conflict between the two companies. It follows a prior U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that triggered an import ban on select Apple Watch models, forcing Apple to modify or deactivate certain health-monitoring features.

Future Action

Apple has publicly contested the verdict, arguing that the asserted patent relates to legacy technology and has since expired. The company has stated its intent to appeal, ensuring the dispute will continue in the appellate courts.

Clarifying the Role of Expired Patents in the Two Cases

Both disputes involve expired patents, but the legal significance is entirely different.

Gesture Technology Partners

The patent was expired and also ruled invalid. Because invalid patents cannot be enforced, and expiration further eliminates any remaining rights, the case ended fully in Apple’s favour as there is no further opportunity to appeal the ruling.

Masimo

Masimo’s patent on the other hand was deemed to be valid and is thus enforceable during the period of Apple’s alleged infringement, even though it has now expired. Patent expiration does not eliminate liability for past infringement. Apple is citing the patent’s expiration as part of its appeal argument, but it does not undermine the jury’s finding of earlier misuse.

To compare the two scenarios, GTP’s expired patent was no longer enforceable as a result of a finding of invalidity which can no longer be challenged, while Masimo’s expired patent remains legally actionable for past infringement whilst its’ validity remains upheld. It of course remains to be seen what ruling an appellate court will ultimately give on validity of the Masimo patent, and if Apple are successful on appeal Masimo may find eventually themselves in a similar position to GTP.

Analysis: Navigating Divergent Legal Landscapes

These parallel legal outcomes illustrate the multifaceted challenges global technology firms face in managing intellectual property exposure. Apple’s success at the Supreme Court underscores the value of administrative patent review and the power of invalidity findings. Conversely, the substantial damages awarded to Masimo highlight the significant risk associated with integrating patented health-monitoring technology into mass-market consumer devices, especially in highly regulated sectors.

The resolution of Apple’s forthcoming appeal in the Masimo case will likely influence future strategies around patent enforcement, product design, and innovation in consumer health electronics. As these cases show, even expired patents can meaningfully alter the trajectory of major technology products, depending on the timing, validity, and enforceability of the underlying rights.