Apple is fighting patent battles on several fronts right now, and the latest Apple patent lawsuit news centers on a $634 million jury verdict won by Masimo over Apple Watch blood oxygen features, a $700 million-plus FRAND dispute with Optis Wireless heading to the UK Supreme Court this summer, and a string of 2026 rulings that have gone Apple’s way, including a defense verdict in a third Optis trial in Texas and a Ninth Circuit win over AliveCor.
Masimo’s $634 Million Verdict and Apple’s Challenge
On November 14, 2025, a jury in the Central District of California found that Apple had incorporated pulse-oximetry features into roughly 43 million Apple Watch devices in violation of Masimo’s blood oxygen monitoring patents, and awarded Masimo $634 million. It was the largest patent verdict of 2025.1AppleInsider. Masimo Awarded $634M in Apple Watch Patent Infringement Verdict2Law360. The Top Patent Damages of 2025 The verdict targeted the Apple Watch’s heart rate notification features and workout mode.
Apple filed a motion in December 2025 to overturn or reduce the award, arguing that the single patent at the center of the trial had expired in 2022 and covered “historic patient monitoring technology.” Masimo opposed the motion in January 2026 and asked the court to deny it in full. No ruling on Apple’s post-trial motion had been reported as of early 2026.1AppleInsider. Masimo Awarded $634M in Apple Watch Patent Infringement Verdict3MassDevice. Masimo Combats Apple’s Attempt to Avoid Payment
The Separate ITC Case: Ban Upheld, Redesign Cleared
The jury verdict is only one piece of the Masimo fight. In a parallel International Trade Commission proceeding, the agency previously found that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act by importing Apple Watch models that infringed two Masimo patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,502 and 10,945,648) covering wearable devices that use light-emitting diodes and photodetectors to measure blood oxygen. The ITC issued a Limited Exclusion Order and a cease and desist order.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2024-12855U.S. International Trade Commission. Notice of Final Determination, Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
Apple disabled the blood oxygen feature by software update, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection decided in January 2024 that the workaround cleared the import ban. Apple later built a more elaborate redesign that moves much of the data processing to the iPhone using information from the watch sensor.6AppleInsider. US ITC Won’t Allow Masimo to Bring Back the Apple Watch Ban79to5Mac. Apple Wins Latest Round in Masimo Fight as ITC Closes Apple Watch Import Ban Case
Two rulings in spring 2026 locked in the current state of play. On March 19, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s original infringement findings and upheld the exclusion order in full.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2024-12858IPWatchdog. Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Finding Apple Watch Infringes Masimo Blood Oxygen Patents A day earlier, an Administrative Law Judge had found that Apple’s redesigned blood oxygen feature did not infringe. The full Commission declined to review that determination on April 17, 2026, closing the enforcement proceeding and confirming that the redesigned watches are not subject to the exclusion order. Masimo retains the right to appeal to the Federal Circuit, though no appeal had been reported as of mid-2026.6AppleInsider. US ITC Won’t Allow Masimo to Bring Back the Apple Watch Ban79to5Mac. Apple Wins Latest Round in Masimo Fight as ITC Closes Apple Watch Import Ban Case
Optis Wireless: Apple Wins Round Three in Texas
Optis Wireless Technology holds a portfolio of 4G LTE standard-essential patents acquired from Ericsson and LG Electronics, and sued Apple in 2019. The case has produced three jury trials in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with very different results.9Texas Lawbook. Round 3 Goes to Apple in Optis Patent Trial
A first jury awarded Optis $506.2 million in August 2020. A second awarded $300 million in August 2021. In June 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement finding and the $300 million damages award, pointing to four reversible errors, including a verdict form that violated Apple’s Seventh Amendment right to jury unanimity and the improper admission of an Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement as damages evidence.10Patently-O. Federal Circuit Identifies Multiple Reversible Errors in Optis v. Apple
The third trial ran four days in February 2026. Optis sought between $400 million and $600 million; Judge Gilstrap barred Optis from a last-minute attempt to push damages to $1.17 billion, calling it “an ambush.” On February 12, 2026, the jury found that Apple did not infringe any of the five asserted LTE patents, leaving Apple with no payment obligation. Optis has indicated it will appeal.11Bloomberg Law. Apple Beats Optis Wireless Patent Claims in Latest Trial Verdict9Texas Lawbook. Round 3 Goes to Apple in Optis Patent Trial
The UK Supreme Court Hearing in Summer 2026
Across the Atlantic, Optis has had better results. A UK proceeding to set the global FRAND royalty rate began with a $56.43 million figure in the High Court in 2023. The Court of Appeal increased that to a $502 million lump sum covering patent usage from 2013 through 2027, pushing Apple’s total liability past $700 million with interest. The appeals court set a per-unit rate of $0.15 and wrote that Apple’s “significant negotiating strength leads some parties to agree lower rates than would be agreed between a willing licensor/willing licensee.”12MacRumors. Apple Must Pay Over $700 Million in Patent Case13IPWatchdog. UK Court of Appeal Increases Apple FRAND Payment to Optis to $502 Million
Apple obtained permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. The hearing is scheduled for June 29 to July 1, 2026, and will test the methodology British courts use to set global FRAND rates and whether the Court of Appeal should have recalculated the rate itself rather than remanding.14UK Supreme Court. UKSC 2025/0145 – Optis v. Apple
Other Apple Patent Cases in the News
TOT Power Control: $110.7 Million on 3G
On June 30, 2025, a Delaware jury found that Apple’s wireless chips infringed TOT Power Control’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865, which covers cellular power-saving technology used in the 3G standard. The jury awarded $110.7 million based on a running royalty of $0.25 per unit. Apple has announced it will appeal.15Reuters. Apple Owes $110 Million in Wireless Tech Patent Case16IPFray. Apple Will Appeal $110 Million Damages Order in 3G Patent Dispute
Fintiv: Apple Pay Case Revived
Fintiv sued Apple in 2018 over three mobile-payment patents, claiming Apple Pay and Apple Wallet infringed. Two were invalidated at the PTAB in late 2023 and early 2024, but U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125, on mobile wallet management, survived. Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas granted Apple summary judgment, but on May 16, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Fintiv had offered enough circumstantial evidence to create a factual dispute over whether the claimed “widget” software is present in Apple Pay and Apple Wallet. The case is back for further proceedings.17U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-220818IPFray. Pendulum Swings Back in Favor of Fintiv in Payment System Patent Dispute With Apple
AliveCor: Patents Invalidated, Antitrust Claims Dismissed
Heart-monitor maker AliveCor won an ITC finding in December 2022 that the Apple Watch infringed three of its patents, but enforcement of the exclusion order was suspended during PTAB review. The PTAB found all three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,572,499, 10,595,731, and 10,638,941) unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed those invalidity findings on March 7, 2025.19U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AliveCor Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1512
AliveCor’s parallel antitrust suit in the Northern District of California alleged that a watchOS update disabled its competing heart-rate app while Apple withheld algorithm data from third-party developers. The district court granted Apple summary judgment, and on January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Apple had no antitrust duty to share its heart rate data with competitors and classifying the conduct as a lawful refusal to deal.20U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. AliveCor Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 24-1392
EyesMatch at the Unified Patent Court
In Europe, EyesMatch has sued Apple in the Unified Patent Court over European Patent EP2936439, which covers a “method of capturing and displaying appearances.” The case is pending before the Mannheim Local Division in Germany and could produce injunctions across roughly 10 European countries. As of mid-2026, the case was in its written phase, with Apple filing a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent.21IPFray. Apple Gets Sued in Unified Patent Court by EyesMatch22Unified Patent Court. UPC Case CFI-0001504/2026
What to Watch Next
Three dates matter most in the near term. The Central District of California has not yet ruled on Apple’s post-trial motion to overturn or cut the $634 million Masimo verdict. Masimo could still appeal the ITC’s decision clearing Apple’s redesigned Apple Watch to the Federal Circuit. And the UK Supreme Court will hear Apple’s appeal in the Optis FRAND case from June 29 to July 1, 2026, in a ruling that will shape how British courts set global royalties for standard-essential patents.