#1 Legal Files: Week Ending 6 October 2026
This is a weekly roundup of court cases, rulings and regulatory actions involving the sports watch, ring and fitness platform companies this site covers. Each entry states who is involved, what is alleged or decided, where the matter stands and what it could mean for athletes. Allegations are reported as allegations.
Other sites push out an alert for every case and ruling as it happens. This roundup gathers the week into a single read and keeps your inbox clear. The weekly Deep Dive Digest email covers the wider sports technology news for those who want it.
Also in the Deep Dive series: Regulatory Filing, Trademark & Patent Filing, Fix Files, Feature Files and the Deep Dive Digest.
It was a quiet week in the courts for the companies this site follows, with one development of note. A federal judge in California ordered Apple to pay Masimo a further $184 million in interest on top of the $634 million patent verdict that a jury returned over the Apple Watch in 2025. No other new filing or ruling involving the companies in scope could be confirmed for the period.
Masimo v Apple: judge adds $184 million in interest to the $634 million Apple Watch patent verdict
On 5 October 2026, Judge James V. Selna of the US District Court for the Central District of California ordered Apple to pay Masimo an additional $184 million in interest on the $634 million that a jury awarded Masimo in its patent case over the Apple Watch. According to reports of the order, the judge rejected Apple’s argument that an interest award would unjustly enrich Masimo, and he applied Masimo’s own borrowing rate instead of the higher rate of 7 per cent that Masimo had sought. The addition takes the total that Apple has been ordered to pay to about $818 million.
The underlying verdict dates from November 2025, when a jury found that the Apple Watch infringed US Patent No. 10,433,776, which Masimo holds and which concerns physiological monitoring. Reports of the trial describe the infringing functions as the watch’s heart rate notification features. Reports from July 2026 state that the court left the damages award in place after post-trial motions. The interest order is a further step in the district court, and the reports seen this week do not say whether Apple will challenge it. This case is separate from the proceedings at the US International Trade Commission over the blood oxygen feature of the Apple Watch.
For athletes, the order concerns money and does not restrict the sale or the functions of any Apple Watch. Heart rate notifications and the other health features remain available as before. A larger sum could, in principle, add to the pressure on both companies to reach a licensing agreement or a settlement, and any such agreement might in time influence how Apple designs or licenses its health sensing features, although nothing of that kind has been announced.
Evidence: Confirmed by two reports. Source: US District Court for the Central District of California, reported by Bloomberg Law, reported from around the web
More from last week’s Legal Files roundup.
Browse every issue at the Legal Files hub.
Last Updated on 6 October 2026 by tfk the5krunner

tfk is the founder and author of the5krunner, an independent endurance sports technology publication. With 20 years of hands-on testing of GPS watches and wearables, and competing in triathlons at an international age-group level, tfk provides in-depth expert analysis of fitness technology for serious athletes and endurance sport competitors. ID
