Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A California jury’s finding that Apple must pay Masimo $634 million for patent infringement creates an immediate legal moment that turns on how U.S. law treats medical-grade technologies incorporated into consumer devices.
From here, the key issues are procedural rather than dramatic. Patent verdicts activate a structured sequence of post-trial options, judicial review, and potential appellate scrutiny. Cases involving health-sensor technology often rely on a mix of technical evidence and federal processes that rarely make it into public discussion, even though they determine what ultimately happens to the products at issue.
A jury verdict in a patent case typically addresses three questions:
whether the asserted patent is valid,
whether the accused product falls within the patent’s claims, and
the amount of compensatory damages.
Even after the jury decides these points, federal judges may evaluate the verdict through established post-trial motions. These procedures examine whether the legal standards were applied correctly and whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient. The court’s review is a normal part of the process, regardless of the size of the award.
Under U.S. law, patent damages fall into two categories: lost profits or a reasonable royalty.
Most consumer-technology cases use the reasonable-royalty method, which models a hypothetical licensing negotiation from before the alleged infringement began.
Courts often rely on the recognised Georgia-Pacific factors to guide juries. These factors look at licensing practices, the importance of the patented feature, the availability of non-infringing alternatives, and market conditions. Patent damages are compensatory only; the statute does not permit punitive enhancements unless specific statutory criteria—such as willfulness—are proven, and even then the increase is discretionary and capped.
Patent appeals are heard exclusively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialised appellate court that reviews the legal framework applied at trial. The Federal Circuit examines issues such as claim interpretation, evidentiary sufficiency, and the legal accuracy of jury instructions.
Damages awards do not typically change hands during this period. Parties often request a stay of enforcement while the appellate court evaluates the trial court’s decisions. This is a routine step in patent litigation, especially in disputes involving complex technical testimony.
Patent holders may seek parallel relief through the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC can issue exclusion orders blocking certain imported products found to infringe a valid U.S. patent. For companies with global manufacturing operations, these orders can significantly influence product availability in the United States.
When a company releases a revised version of a product, U.S. Customs and Border Protection evaluates whether the redesign falls outside the scope of an existing exclusion order. These administrative decisions run alongside federal court litigation and can determine which variations of a device reach consumers.
Expired patents cannot be infringed after they lapse, but they remain enforceable for past conduct that occurred while they were valid.
Another common misconception is that older technology is harder to protect. In reality, age does not affect enforceability; the only relevant questions are validity and whether the claims cover the conduct during the patent’s active life.
A pivotal element in technology-based patent cases is the scope of the patent claims, which define the boundaries of the invention. Courts determine this scope during a Markman hearing, where judges interpret disputed terms using the patent’s language and its prosecution history.
Once the judge sets the meaning of those terms, everything else—from infringement analysis to damages—flows from that interpretation. In cases involving biometric sensors or optical-measurement features, claim-construction outcomes often shape the entire trajectory of the litigation.
The next phase involves post-trial motions, potential stays, and review by the Federal Circuit. Parallel administrative processes at the ITC and CBP will continue to determine which product configurations can be imported. These steps are governed by established procedures and tend to unfold over an extended period, shaping how the underlying technology can be sold or used in the U.S. market.
Does a jury verdict mean damages are paid immediately?
No. Enforcement is often paused while post-trial motions and appeals move forward.
Can redesigned products be imported during an ITC order?
Only if U.S. Customs determines that the redesign falls outside the exclusion order’s scope.
Are medical-sensor patents treated differently in court?
The legal standards are the same, though these cases often involve complex scientific evidence that can influence the arguments presented.
Why do patent cases frequently go to the Federal Circuit?
Because the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction over patent appeals and reviews key legal issues such as claim interpretation and evidentiary standards.
