Apple watched the US market adjust to a patent dispute over its wearable sensors, resolving to keep selling its latest watches while limiting one key health feature. By temporarily disabling the blood oxygen function on US models, Apple managed to reintroduce the Series 9 and Ultra 2 in stores, even as litigation between Apple and Masimo rages on. The move, and the mystery surrounding how it was accomplished, reveal a nuanced approach to hardware-feature control amid legal pressure, and set the stage for ongoing courtroom developments and potential future reversals.
Background and timeline of the dispute
In early 2023, a significant legal ruling set the stage for months of tension between Apple and Masimo, a leading producer of pulse oximetry technology. A US court determined that Apple had infringed Masimo’s pulse oximetry patents with the Apple Watch, marking a pivotal moment in the technology’s patent landscape. The decision established a foundation for subsequent regulatory action, as Masimo’s case advanced through federal channels.
Following the court’s ruling, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reviewed the matter and, in October of the same year, affirmed the court’s decision. The ITC’s upholding of the ruling strengthened Masimo’s position and intensified the pressure on Apple to alter its product offerings in the United States. As a result, Apple was compelled to halt the sale of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 within the US market.
The disruption did not end with a straightforward remedy. The initial ban was temporarily put on hold while Apple pursued an appeal within the US court system. However, that appeal was rejected, forcing Apple to pause sales once again. In this context, a technical solution emerged as a practical workaround: removing the pulse oximeter technology from the Apple Watch models sold in the United States. This approach allowed Apple to comply with the court’s findings while maintaining product availability in the domestic market.
In the months that followed, Apple indicated that it would offer a new version of the Series 9 and Ultra 2 that would no longer include the blood oxygen feature. The company’s US website subsequently reflected this shift, stating that the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 no longer include the Blood Oxygen feature. This change suggested a pivot in product labeling and feature availability designed to align with regulatory rulings while preserving the core smartwatch experience for most users.
Discovery of the workaround and labeling of new models
The path to reintroducing the devices involved more than a public-facing label change. Reports and disclosures noted by industry watchers indicated that revised models without the blood oxygen feature bore part numbers ending in “LW/A.” This detail implied a versioning scheme tied to specific regional or hardware configurations, signaling to the market that the new SKUs were not simply the same devices with a software toggle but were, in effect, variant hardware units without the pulse oximetry capability.
However, questions persisted about whether Apple was genuinely shipping new hardware that lacked the blood oxygen sensor or if another approach was at play. In-depth observations by industry outlets suggested that the company did not appear to be distributing hardware that inherently omits the sensor across all installations. Rather, the company seemed to pursue a strategy in which a software constraint governed feature availability for specific regional variants, particularly those identified with the LW/A designation. This distinction—between a hardware-deactivated feature and an actual sensorless hardware model—became a focal point for analysts attempting to understand the scope and permanence of the change.
The practical implications for consumers were nuanced. For new US models marketed under the LW/A suffix, the blood oxygen feature would not be present as a functional option. Yet for devices already in customers’ hands, especially those with prior blood oxygen capability, the status remained more complex. The approach suggested a temporary, reversible measure rather than an outright hardware redesign or a wholesale removal of the feature across all Apple Watch configurations. The effect was to enable continued sales in the US market under regulatory constraints, while the underlying technology remained available in other regions where the dispute did not impose the same restrictions.
The technical mechanism: remote control of health features by region
What makes the described workaround technically interesting is the claim that Apple remotely updated a system file responsible for managing the availability of health features by region. According to industry reporting, this update effectively disables the blood oxygen feature for Apple Watch models bearing the identifier “LW/A.” The implication is that Apple could, in theory, reverse the change if regulatory or legal circumstances permit restoration of the feature for those models or regions.
Crucially, the timing of the update aligns with the ITC’s decision in October 2023. The file that blocks the pulse oximeter feature for LW/A models was uploaded to Apple’s servers in October 2023, the same month the ITC upheld the judge’s ruling. This synchronicity suggests a deliberate preparation on Apple’s part for the worst-case legal scenario, ensuring that the company could rapidly adapt product functionality in response to ongoing litigation and regulatory outcomes.
The use of a region-based, remotely managed feature gate represents an approach increasingly observed in the consumer electronics space. It allows a manufacturer to manage complex legal and regulatory constraints without having to alter every unit in inventory or undertake broad-scale hardware changes. While this method can preserve legal compliance and marketplace flexibility, it also introduces questions about user expectations and the potential for later reactivation without requiring a new device or a prolonged recall. In Apple’s case, the LW/A designation appears to function as a regional control lever, signaling both the scope of the constraint and the potential for reversal if the legal or regulatory environment changes.
From a product-management perspective, the ability to switch a core sensor off via software—and to do so in a way that can be reversed—offers a way to balance IP compliance with consumer access. It also creates a framework for negotiating future settlements, where feature restoration could hinge on new agreements or shifts in court rulings. The wider industry outlook suggests that other manufacturers might monitor this approach as a model for managing similar disputes, weighing the benefits of software-based feature gating against the risk of customer backlash or perceived reduced functionality.
Current status, customer impact, and likely next steps
The immediate consequence of the dispute remains centered on US sales and the blood oxygen feature. Apple’s strategic response—removing the pulse oximeter functionality for LW/A models in the United States—allows the company to resume selling the Series 9 and Ultra 2 in a legally constrained environment. Importantly, Apple indicated that the changes apply to new Apple Watch models sold in the US, meaning that customers who already owned devices prior to the change are not affected at present. This distinction preserves continuity for existing owners while implementing the legal-compliance changes for new purchases.
The ongoing litigation implies that a final resolution could still be some distance away. Apple has previously indicated that the appeals process could take more than a year, underscoring the protracted nature of patent disputes in the high-tech sector. The combination of ongoing court proceedings and ITC-oriented rulings suggests that the exact fate of the pulse oximetry feature—and whether it could be reinstated in the future—remains uncertain.
Masimo’s public-facing stance adds another layer to the discussion. The company’s leadership has suggested that Apple Watch users may be better off without the blood oxygen feature, and has cast doubt on the reliability of pulse oximetry readings in the context of consumer wearables. This position invites broader questions about the reliability and clinical relevance of consumer-grade health sensors, even as Masimo’s patents form the core of the dispute between the two tech players.
From a consumer impact perspective, the practical effect is twofold. First, there is an immediate difference in the feature set for new US-purchased devices, with blood oxygen functionality removed on certain models. Second, there is an ongoing question about whether and when the feature might be restored—either through a settlement, a revised ruling, or a potential reversal of the gating mechanism. For existing owners, the status quo remains favorable in that their devices will not be affected by the new restriction, preserving their current capabilities unless and until future changes occur.
Masimo’s position, reliability concerns, and market response
Masimo has positioned the dispute around the integrity and ownership of pulse oximetry technology implemented in the Apple Watch. The ITC’s decision to uphold the judge’s ruling reinforces Masimo’s claim that Apple’s use of certain pulse oximetry features fell within Masimo’s patented space. In this context, Masimo’s leadership has framed the ongoing situation as a matter of protecting intellectual property and ensuring that the protected technology remains under Masimo’s licensing control.
Beyond the legal battle, Masimo’s representatives have publicly commented on the fitness and reliability of the blood oxygen feature in consumer wearables. In particular, Masimo’s leadership has suggested that users may be better off without the feature, characterizing it as unreliable for consumer health monitoring. This viewpoint aligns with a market debate over the clinical usefulness and accuracy of pulse oximetry in wrist-worn devices, where factors such as motion, temperature, skin tone, and device placement can influence readings. While Masimo’s statements reflect its public stance in the patent dispute, they also contribute to the broader industry conversation about the reliability and clinical relevance of wearable health sensors.
From a broader market perspective, the situation underscores how IP enforcement and regulatory constraints can shape product capabilities in real time. For Apple, the decision to gate or remove features in response to patent findings represents a strategic risk management approach: protect the existing product line and market access while preserving the ability to navigate ongoing litigation. For Masimo, the enforcement action reinforces the value of its patented technology and the leverage IP rights can provide in a competitive consumer electronics landscape.
Implications for Apple, consumers, and the industry
The Apple–Masimo dispute, and Apple’s response with region-based feature gating, carries several implications for both the company and the broader technology ecosystem. First, it highlights how patent infringement findings in one jurisdiction can prompt adaptive strategies, including software-based feature management and selective hardware labeling, to keep products in circulation while remaining compliant with court decisions and regulatory authorities.
Second, the approach raises questions about user experience and expectations. Consumers may encounter differences in functionality based on region or model variant, which can affect perceived value, brand trust, and ongoing satisfaction. The LW/A labeling and the associated software gating illustrate how manufacturers balance IP protection with consumer access, potentially prompting discussions about clear communication, documentation, and transparency in product specifications.
Third, the case underscores the potential for extended timelines in patent disputes to shape quarterly results, product strategy, and supply chain decisions. If the appeals process extends beyond a year, Apple may need to maintain alternative pathways for product development and regional launches, while Masimo continues to defend its IP. The outcome could influence how other device-makers approach similar disputes, possibly encouraging more modular hardware designs or software-driven feature controls to address IP and regulatory constraints.
Finally, the reader should note that the ongoing litigation framework means that neither Apple’s hardware strategy nor Masimo’s patent portfolio is likely to settle in the near term. Both sides may pursue settlements, licensing arrangements, or revised court opinions in the future. In the meantime, consumers in the United States will experience differentiated product configurations for new devices, with existing purchases unaffected unless regulatory or legal changes occur that alter this status.
Conclusion
The Apple–Masimo patent dispute has driven a strategic turn in how Apple presents its latest Apple Watch models in the United States. By removing the blood oxygen feature from new LW/A-model devices and relying on a software-based, region-specific gating mechanism, Apple has restored sales in the US market while adhering to court and regulatory constraints. The decision to gate or disable health features through remote software updates—coupled with the ITC’s reaffirmation of Masimo’s patent position—illustrates a broader industry trend toward IP-driven product management in consumer electronics.
As the legal process advances, the fate of the pulse oximetry feature, including the possibility of future reinstatement, remains uncertain. Apple’s approach—removing the feature for new US models, maintaining current devices for existing owners, and preserving the option to reverse the change if legal conditions evolve—reflects a cautious, litigation-aware strategy designed to sustain market access while protecting intellectual property rights. Masimo’s stance, emphasizing patent protection and questioning the reliability of consumer health sensors, adds further dimension to the evolving conversation about the role and credibility of wearable health data in everyday life.
In the coming months, observers will watch for developments in both the courts and the broader regulatory environment, as well as for any potential settlements, licensing agreements, or policy shifts that could influence whether the blood oxygen feature ever returns to the US lineup of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2.