2025 has proved to be a big year for patent litigation decisions for Apple. Over the course of the year, Apple have taken home a big win to end their long running dispute with Gesture Technology Partners whilst on a different front they suffered a loss in their proceedings with Masimo costing them $634 million.

We have provided a summary of some of the big patent litigation decisions involving Apple in 2025.

Apple vs Optis Wireless Technology

Apple and Optis have been in a long running licensing dispute regarding Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) owned by Optis. The patents concerned relate to 4G technology.

Optis brought parallel proceedings in both the UK and US.

In the UK, the first instance decision, which was handed down in 2023, ordered Apple to pay Optis a total of $56.43 million across 11 years. Optis appealed the decision on the grounds that the royalty payment was too low.

In May 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement. The judge recalculated the royalty fee to be paid by Apple on a royalty per unit basis and order Apple to pay $0.15 per unit resulting in a total sum of $502 million plus interest to be paid to Optis.

In the US proceedings, in 2020, Apple were initially ordered to pay Optis $506 million in damages. However, within a year of the decision, a federal judge ordered that a new trial on damages was necessary on the grounds that Optis may not have been licensing their patents on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms necessary when licensing SEPs.

In the re-trial, Apple were ordered to pay $300 million in damages to Optis. Apple subsequently appealed the decision which brings us to the latest verdict in this ongoing dispute.

In June 2025, the Court of Appeal for Federal Circuit handed down their decision to overturn the order awarding Optis $300 million. The decision was overturned on the grounds that the judge who ordered the re-trial on damages incorrectly worded the instructions to the jury and combined the matter of infringement of each of the Optis patents into a single question on infringement. The Court of Appeal stated as part of its judgement that this ‘deprived Apple of its right to a unanimous verdict on each legal claim against it’.

It is unlikely that 2025 will be the end of the Apple vs Optis dispute as Apple have indicated that they intend on appealing the decision made by the UK Court of Appeal.

Apple vs Masimo

Masimo have been suing Apple over the course of the last 6 years for alleged infringement of Masimo patents for blood oxygen reading technology used in Apple Watches.

On many of the previous occasions, Apple have come out victorious and Masimo’s patents have been found invalid. In other cases, Masimo have also accused Apple of hiring their employees and thereby acquiring Masimo’s patented blood oxygen reading technology. In 2023, Masimo filed a lawsuit against Apple accusing them of using trade secrets in their development of blood oxygen sensing technology. Ultimately, on that occasion the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, and it was declared a mistrial.

In the latest instalment of Apple vs Masimo, the court found that the heart rate notification features of the Apple Watch infringed Masimo’s patent (US 10,433,776) relating to a method of operating a patient monitor for monitoring a pulse rate of a patient by processing signals responsive to light which have been attenuated by body tissue.

The main issue debated within the trial was a matter of claim construction, could an Apple Watch would be considered a patient monitor?

The court has ordered Apple to pay Masimo $634 million in damages. Apple have indicated their intention to appeal the decision.

Apple vs Gesture Technology Partners

In the latest developments of this case, Apple, Google and LG Electronics all secured a legal win after the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal made by Gesture Technology Partners (GTP) challenging a decision to invalidate patents owned by GTP.

GTP was founded in 2013 by inventor, Dr Timothy Pryor. Dr Pryor was the owner of four patents which he alleged had been infringed by Apple, Google and LG.

The patents in question:

• US7933431, filed in 2010 related to a method of controlling a handheld computing device through movement of a finger in space, sensing the light reflected from the finger and controlling the device in accordance with the command associated with the finger gesture.
• US8194924, filed in 2011 related to a handheld device comprising a computer, a first camera orientated to view the user, a second camera orientated to view an object other than the user, the two cameras having a non-overlapping filed of view and where the computer of the device performs a control function on response to the output of at least one of the first and/or second cameras.
• US8553079, filed in 2012 related to a computer implemented method comprising a light source illuminating a space, a camera configured to observe a gesture performed in such space and determining the gesture performed in the space.
• US8878949, which was filed in 2013 and related to a portable device with a forward facing portion comprising an electro optical sensor, a camera with a separate field of view and a processing unit determining if a gesture has been performed within the field of view of the electro optical sensor and controlling the camera in response to the gesture to capture and store an image.

All four patents had expired in 2020, and no action was taken by GTP whilst the patents were in force. Then in February 2021, GTP brought infringement proceedings against Apple, Google and LG alleging infringement of these patents. GTP sought damages for the alleged infringement for the period whilst the patents were in force.

The lawsuit filed by GTP related to a range of features used by Apple, Google and LG in the cameras of their handheld devices. In Apple’s case, this included Face ID, Smart HDR, picture facial recognition, optical image stabilisation, QR code scanning and portrait mode amongst other features.

In 2021, Apple, Google and LG filed petitions for inter partes review to the US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board for the patents to be invalidated. Ultimately, this resulted in the US Court of Appeal for Federal Circuit declaring the patents invalid.

The Supreme Court had previously held that the board could only review patents which were in force as they could still implicate public rights.

On this basis, GTP presented arguments to the Supreme Court that since the patents had already expired, they could not be reviewed by the board as they no longer implicate public rights. Instead, the patents could only be reviewed by the Federal Courts and therefore the decision of the board was not valid.

Apple, Google, LG and the USPTO provided opposing arguments urging the Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on the grounds that the question of validity of the expired patents did still implicate public rights.

In latest developments of the case, on 17 November 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear GTP’s appeal meaning that the ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board stands. A significant win for Apple, Google and LG.

For more information about this case or any other advice on intellectual property protection please contact us.