Legal Opinion

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided October 6, 2010No. Civil Action 09-80-LPS-MPTPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER MARY PAT THYNGE, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) and defendants Philips Electronics North American Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH (collectively, “Philips”) manufacture competing products in pulse oximetry. Pulse oximetry allows for non-invasive measurement of the oxygen levels in a medical patient’s hemoglobin.

Generally, pulse oximetry operates via a sensor placed over a thin section of a patient’s body, such as the fingertip or earlobe of an adult, or the foot of an infant. The sensor emits red and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. American Hoist & Derrick Company, Cross-Appellee v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
  4. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1970
  5. Berkey Photo, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Eastman Kodak Company, Defendant-Appellant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wi-Lan Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2019
  2. Senorx, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2013
  3. Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Charter Communications, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2021
  4. Xin Wang v. Injective Labs Inc. and Zhonghan “Eric” ChenDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API