The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has reignited one of Apple’s most consequential legal battles, agreeing to conduct a new investigation that could once again halt imports of the tech giant’s latest smartwatches. The decision threatens a segment of Apple’s ecosystem that has become increasingly important as wearables offset slowing iPhone growth and as regulatory pressure intensifies across the company’s global operations.

A High-Stakes Review of Apple’s Workaround

The ITC said Friday it will evaluate whether Apple’s redesigned blood-oxygen features—introduced after an earlier import ban—still infringe Masimo’s patents. The initial ruling, issued in 2023, found Apple’s measurement technology violated Masimo’s intellectual property, prompting a temporary ban on Series 9 and Ultra 2 Watch imports. Apple responded by removing the pulse-oximetry feature entirely before debuting an updated version in August, which received interim clearance from US Customs and Border Protection.

That approval is now itself under attack, with Masimo suing Customs over its decision. Apple, meanwhile, has appealed the original ITC ban to a federal court, arguing that Masimo is weaponizing patent litigation by mimicking Apple’s design while attempting to shut the company out of the wearables market.

The new ITC review is expected to conclude within six months, placing a clear timeline around the next major inflection point for Apple’s Watch strategy.

A Bitter Corporate Feud Intensifies

The dispute with Masimo has evolved from a technical patent disagreement into a complex, multi-front conflict spanning import decisions, federal lawsuits, and claims of employee poaching. Masimo alleges Apple hired its engineers to misappropriate pulse-oximetry know-how—a claim that previously led to a mistrial when jurors could not reach consensus.

The companies are now locked in simultaneous litigation in California and Delaware. Masimo seeks up to $749 million in a California patent infringement trial now in jury deliberations, while Apple won only a symbolic $250 verdict in a Delaware countersuit last year alleging Masimo copied Apple’s hardware design.

The breadth of the conflict highlights how critical health-tracking features have become to Apple’s long-term strategy. With regulatory constraints tightening globally—from app store changes in Europe to antitrust scrutiny in Washington—the Apple Watch represents one of the company’s most defensible growth engines. Any disruption to imports would reverberate through supply chains, retail channels, and Apple’s broader ecosystem narrative.

Market and Industry Implications

For investors, the renewed ITC action raises questions about near-term Apple Watch availability and longer-term innovation risk. The wearables unit has been central to Apple’s efforts to diversify revenue, and the blood-oxygen sensor is a marquee health tool that supports its competitive positioning against Samsung, Garmin, and emerging medical-grade device makers.

A potential second import ban would pressure margins, disrupt holiday-quarter inventory planning, and test Apple’s ability to engineer rapid compliance solutions without diluting product value. For the broader technology sector, the case underscores the growing intersection between consumer electronics and regulated medical technology, where IP barriers are increasingly weaponized.

What to Watch Next

Over the coming months, the ITC’s technical findings, the outcome of the California jury trial, and Masimo’s challenge to Customs’ decision will collectively determine whether Apple faces a short-lived setback or a structural fight that reshapes the smartwatch landscape. Investors will monitor whether Apple pursues further design changes or accelerates legal remedies to ensure uninterrupted market access globally.