Apple Can't Escape Apple Watch Heart Rate Sensor Patent Lawsuit, Court Rules

Apple must face a patent infringement lawsuit over the heart rate technology in the Apple Watch, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled today.

applewatchheartrate2
Back in 2018, Apple was sued by Omni MedSci, with the company alleging that Apple used its patented technology in the Apple Watch. Apple reportedly met with Omni MedSci between 2014 to 2016 to discuss a possible partnership, but Apple is said to have ended discussions and used technology from four Omni patents anyway.

According to Reuters, Apple attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed.

Omni MedSci is owned by Mohammed Islam, who has been described as a "poster child for a patenting professional." He owns six companies and has collected more than 150 patents. In the past, he has used those patents to sue companies that include Fujitsu, Alcatel-Lucent, Huawei, Nokia, and Siemens.

Islam is employed by the University of Michigan, and Apple's argument for dismissal was that his patents were owned by the university, which the University of Michigan supported on behalf of Apple. The appeals court decided that was not the case, and that Islam's employment agreement did not automatically assign his patents to the university.

Omni MedSci has claimed that Apple willfully infringed on its patents. The company is seeking an injunction to stop the sale of the Apple Watch, along with damages. Omni MedSci's attorney told Reuters that the company is "pleased by not surprised" by the ruling.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
xiaomi apple ad india

Apple and Samsung Push Back Against Xiaomi's Bold India Ads

Friday August 29, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple and Samsung have reportedly issued cease-and-desist notices to Xiaomi in India for an ad campaign that directly compares the rivals' devices to Xiaomi's products. The two companies have threatened the Chinese vendor with legal action, calling the ads "disparaging." Ads have appeared in local print media and on social media that take pot shots at the competitors' premium offerings. One...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
maxresdefault

The MacRumors Show: iPhone 17's 'Awe Dropping' Accessories

Friday August 29, 2025 8:12 am PDT by
Following the announcement of Apple's upcoming "Awe dropping" event, on this week's episode of The MacRumors Show we talk through all of the new accessories rumored to debut alongside the iPhone 17 lineup. Subscribe to The MacRumors Show YouTube channel for more videos We take a closer look at Apple's invite for "Awe dropping;" the design could hint at the iPhone 17's new thermal system with ...

Top Rated Comments

cmaier Avatar
53 months ago

If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?
Nobody has accused apple of stealing the technology. They are accused of infringing a patent, that they didn’t know about, and which may or may not be valid and may or may not be enforceable. And if it’s invalid and enforceable, the burden is still on the patent owner to show that it has been infringed. Apple wins most of the patent lawsuits against it (the ones that go to trial), so assuming that Apple infringes, at this early stage, is a bit cart before the horse.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
LeeW Avatar
53 months ago
I mean there are those that will sue Apple for infringement of patents they bought, Apple sues others for infringement of patents they bought. Let's not make saints out of any sinners here.
Score: 16 Votes (Like | Disagree)
poked Avatar
53 months ago
If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
GeoStructural Avatar
53 months ago

If you patent it, you own that patent. Apple stealing patents is unethical. Lobbying isn’t the issue, it’s that they blatantly stole the technology. I’d like to read the entire court hearing, does anyone have a link?
Yes, but you will always find people here defending Apple for unethical practices like this. Anyone who ever sues Apple is deemed a ”patent troll”, like that Brazilian company that was in operation before Steve Jobs was even in middle school and registered/marketed iPhone before such a thing existed in the US, they were not spared the fury of the blind fandom.

Apple, just pay the money. I find ridiculous that they charge companies for using their Lighting Connector based on a 20+ year old technology but do not want to pay for the use of 5G technology and sensors they benefit from, need, and do not own.
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
53 months ago

Except the patent was put into the technology. And the title states Apple lost the patent lawsuit appeal, which means they have to continue the evidence portion of proving they DIDNT steal the tech outlined explicitly by the patent that IS BEING USED currently (allegedly) or infringing upon the patent created. Apples to Apples, in this case.
Is my technicality alright to you now? :p
No, that’s not how it works. They lost the appeal on the issue of who owns the patent. The accused infringer NEVER has to prove they DON’T infringe. The burden of proof is always on the owner of the patent.

And patent infringement is not “stealing.”
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
53 months ago

Cracks me up when these companies seek an injunction to stop the sale…oh really so Apple is going to just stop selling the watch altogether? Gtfo
If the injunction were to be granted then yes, they would stop selling the watch. Such injunctions are rare, because the court must balance competing interests, and the party seeking the injunction has to show that they would otherwise suffer some sort of harm that could not be compensated for by a payment of money later on.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)