Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling that upheld the International Trade Commission’s import ban on Apple Watch models with the original blood oxygen feature. The petition, Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 26-316, was filed on September 3, and the Supreme Court’s docket lists responses as due October 13, 2026.
Apple’s argument is about the legal test Masimo had to pass before the ITC could block imports at all. It says the Federal Circuit lowered that bar and affirmed “a ban on Apple Watches with pulse oximetry to protect a patentee that barely sold a consumer product that used the patents.”
What Apple is arguing
The ITC can ban imports that infringe a U.S. patent only if the patent holder shows a “domestic industry” in the United States tied to products the patent covers. The law gives three ways to show it: (A) “significant investment in plant and equipment,” (B) “significant employment of labor or capital,” or (C) “substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.”
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
According to the petition, Masimo won solely under (B), on the strength of research and development spending. Apple argues that R&D belongs only under (C), which demands a closer link between the money and the patent. Its first question asks whether a patent holder fails the (B) test “where the patentee’s investment falls into one of three uses listed only in §1337(a)(3)(C).”
The second question concerns how appeals courts review agencies. Apple says the Federal Circuit upheld the ITC on reasoning the agency itself never gave, contrary to the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in SEC v. Chenery Corp. The petition closes with a main request and a fallback: “The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted and the judgment below reversed. At a minimum, the Federal Circuit’s decision should be summarily reversed due to the failure to comply with Chenery and its progeny.”
The “never sold a watch” line
Much of the petition turns on Masimo’s own watch. Apple says Apple Watch Series 6, launched in September 2020, was its first watch to measure blood oxygen, and that Masimo filed its ITC complaint in July 2021, “hop[ing],” in the words of its former CEO, “that the ITC would … block the importation and sale of” Apple Watch and buy time for Masimo to “launch” its own watch, the W1.
According to Apple, the W1 “did not exist until months after Masimo filed its complaint” and was never sold “in the United States in any meaningful quantity.” Explaining why the case deserves the Court’s time, the petition says Apple “has had to spend significant time and money to redesign Apple Watch to allow the popular wearable devices to remain on the market” because of “a complaint from a medical technology company that has never sold a watch in meaningful quantities.”
How long the ban lasts
The ban took effect on December 26, 2023. Apple won a brief administrative stay from the Federal Circuit, which the petition says “expired shortly after the federal government approved a redesigned Watch without blood oxygen functionality.”
The petition gives the end date plainly: “The ban on importation of the original design will remain in place until August 2028, when the two patents held infringed expire.” Those are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,912,502 and 10,945,648. A third Masimo patent was found not infringed.
Apple’s current watches still list a Blood Oxygen app. The spec pages for Apple Watch Series 12 and Apple Watch Ultra 4 both say “Measurements are calculated and viewed on iPhone in the Health app.” The petition doesn’t say what a win would mean for any particular watch.
Who is on the other side
The respondents are the ITC, Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, which the petition says is “now doing business as Willow Laboratories.” A footnote adds: “While the underlying proceedings were pending, Danaher Corporation (DHR) acquired Masimo Corporation.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer is counsel of record for the federal respondents. Mark C. Fleming of WilmerHale is Apple’s counsel of record, joined by Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy.
What happens next
The respondents’ filings are due October 13, 2026, according to the docket. After that, the justices decide whether to take the case. If they grant the petition, they can hear it in full or, as Apple asks in the alternative, summarily reverse. If they deny it, the Federal Circuit’s March 19, 2026 decision, which it declined to rehear on July 21, stands, and the original design stays barred until the patents expire in August 2028.
A separate ITC modification and enforcement proceeding from the same investigation is on its own track. The petition lists it as on appeal at the Federal Circuit, No. 26-1955, docketed June 22, 2026.
