Apple Asks the Supreme Court to Limit the ITC's Power Over Patent Disputes

Apple Inc. filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 3, 2026, asking the justices to narrow a key rule that governs how patent disputes are handled at the International Trade Commission. The case, Apple Inc. v. ITC (No. 26-316), stems from Apple's long-running patent fight with medical technology company Masimo Corporation over blood-oxygen sensing technology in the Apple Watch. While the immediate impact on Apple's current product line is limited, the legal question Apple raises could reshape how the ITC evaluates patent complaints for years to come.

The Dispute

The fight between Apple and Masimo dates back to 2021, when Masimo filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that the Apple Watch's blood-oxygen sensor infringed its patents. In late 2023, the ITC issued an exclusion order banning the importation of infringing Apple Watch models. Apple briefly pulled affected watches from sale before obtaining a temporary stay, and in January 2024 disabled the blood-oxygen feature to resume sales. By August 2025, Apple had designed a workaround that processes blood-oxygen data on a paired iPhone rather than the watch itself, and the ITC cleared that redesign in April 2026.

However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the original exclusion order in March 2026, finding that the Apple Watch did infringe Masimo's patents. Apple's Supreme Court petition does not challenge the infringement finding itself. Instead, it targets the threshold test that allowed Masimo to bring the ITC case in the first place.

The Domestic Industry Requirement

The ITC can block infringing imports only if the patent holder demonstrates a "domestic industry" connected to the patented technology in the United States. Federal law provides three ways to show this: significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in exploiting the patent through engineering, research, or licensing.

Masimo relied on its research and development spending on a blood-oxygen watch that was still in the prototype stage and had never been sold commercially. The ITC credited that spending under the "labor or capital" category. Apple argues that R&D spending belongs only under the "exploitation" category, which requires a stronger connection between the investment and the specific patent claims at issue. If the Supreme Court agrees, it would make it harder for companies that hold patents but have not yet brought a product to market to use the ITC to block competitors.

Key Takeaway for Business Owners

This case highlights an important strategic consideration for patent holders: where you choose to enforce your patents matters as much as the strength of the patents themselves. The ITC offers powerful remedies, including the ability to ban infringing products from entering the country entirely, but access to the ITC comes with requirements that federal courts do not impose. Companies that invest in developing patented technology should understand how the domestic industry test works and structure their investments and documentation to meet its requirements if ITC enforcement may be needed in the future.

For businesses on the other side of a patent dispute, the case is a reminder that procedural and jurisdictional challenges can be just as effective as arguing the merits. Apple's petition does not claim its products are non-infringing. Instead, it questions whether Masimo should have been able to bring the case to the ITC at all. Understanding the rules of the forum where a dispute is heard can open up strategic options that go well beyond the patent claims themselves.

If you have questions about patent enforcement strategies or want to evaluate your options for protecting your inventions, schedule a free consultation with Diorio IP Law Group to discuss your next steps.