Untitled case

I'll research this case and the patent at issue.

Case Overview — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Ōura Health Oy, No. 2:26-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. The plaintiff is Omni MedSci, Inc., a Michigan corporation with a listed place of business at 1718 Newport Creek Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 — the same address recited in the related E.D. Tex. complaints (2:24-cv-01070 complaint). It is best characterized as an inventor-controlled licensing/assertion entity rather than a practicing manufacturer: it does not appear to sell products, it litigates a large multi-patent optical-sensing portfolio, and third-party databases have classified it as an NPE (one aggregator labels it "Operating Company," but that is an automated tag, and a Korean IP-protection database entry for the Apple suit describes it as a U.S. NPE) — I could not find a court filing that resolves the characterization, so treat "NPE/PAE" as descriptive shorthand, not a verified legal status. The defendant is Ōura Health Oy, a Finnish osakeyhtiö headquartered in Oulu, Finland, maker of the Ōura Ring sleep/recovery tracker; its U.S. affiliate entities are separately organized. The docket entry date of April 10, 2026 is confirmed by Patexia's district-court index and by Law360 attorney case listings (Mayer Brown's Jasjit Vidwan and Julia Haines, Nixon Peabody's Timothy Maloney), and the case is indexed as Nature of Suit 830 (Patent) in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (Patexia; case index). Counsel of record, the assigned judge, and the asserted-claim list could not be verified from PACER or a court order at the time of writing — the case is styled "unconfirmed" in the metadata, and I have not located an Article III assignment on the docket. Given that the companion case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070, sits before District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in Marshall, a JRG/RSP assignment here is a reasonable expectation but is speculation, not a sourced fact.

The procedural genesis of the new suit is well documented. In 2:24-cv-01070, Omni had sued Samsung, Fossil, OnePlus, and Ōura together. On March 31, 2026, Judge Gilstrap overruled Omni's objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 146), and granted Ōura's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint as to improper joinder (Dkt. 83), while denying the motion on all other grounds (order, govinfo). Ten days later, Omni filed this standalone action against Ōura alone — the classic sever-and-refile response to a misjoinder ruling. That sequencing is strongly supported; the inference that 00289 is the refiled severed claim is mine, not a court statement.

Accused technology and patent. The accused instrumentalities, as framed in Omni's family of complaints, are the Ōura Ring (Gen 1 through Gen 4), the iOS/Android Ōura app, and the Ōura Cloud platform, alleged to operate as an integrated system: LEDs and photodetectors in the ring illuminate tissue and detect reflected light, the ring's processor extracts physiological parameters (heart rate, blood-oxygen), and the app/cloud receive, store, and further process the data. The patent at issue per the case metadata and the Google Patents '484 litigation portal is U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484, "Semiconductor diodes-based physiological measurement device with improved signal-to-noise ratio" — issued December 31, 2019, claiming priority to December 2013, and generally directed to a wearable optical measurement device that improves SNR by (i) boosting LED intensity from an initial level, (ii) synchronizing the detector to the light source, and (iii) comparing detector readings taken with the LEDs on versus off (a "change detection" scheme), with claims also reciting LED/detector geometries, six-LED/arc arrangements, smartphone pairing, and use of "artificial intelligence" in processing. A one-line sketch, then: a wrist/finger-worn LED-plus-photodetector sensor that cancels ambient light by differencing "light on" and "light off" signals to raise signal-to-noise ratio, paired to a phone and cloud backend. Caveat on scope: the auto-generated complaint summaries circulating for 2:26-cv-00289 reproduce the infringement charts for the '868 and '533 patents from the 2024 complaint (Ex Parte analysis), which suggests the new complaint may assert the same multi-patent family — I could not confirm the actual asserted-patent count from the complaint itself, and I would not rely on those third-party charts. The '484's own claim set matters: in IPR2021-00453 the Board invalidated some claims but held claims 3–6 and 8–14 not proven unpatentable, and the key disputed term was "to identify an object" (claim 8) — a term Omni and Ōura's counsel were still contesting in the 2024 case's P.R. 4-3 process (service email, Nov. 11, 2025).

Why the case is notable. Three threads make it worth tracking. First, venue and case-management strategy: this is a Marshall Division follow-on filed in the wake of a joinder dismissal, in the district and before the judges (Gilstrap/Payne) who have already refused to stay the parallel case pending the PTAB's August 2025 petition wave — Judge Gilstrap denied Samsung/Fossil/Ōura's motion to stay on August 29, 2025 (cited as Ex. 2006 in multiple petitions), a data point on EDTX's willingness to let infringement litigation run alongside PTAB challenges. Second, PTAB linkage: the '484 is the patent that produced Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024), where Judge Alan Albright, sitting by designation, authored his first Federal Circuit opinion and vacated-in-part the Board's decision for refusing to consider Apple's reply-brief claim construction arguments under Axonics (Patently-O analysis; JD Supra) — and the '484 now appears to be on a further appeal, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.), per petitioners' mandatory notices. The same defendants (Samsung, Samsung Austin/America, Fossil, OnePlus, Ōura) filed a coordinated set of petitions on August 5, 2025 — IPR2025-01249 ('868), -01250 ('533), -01251 ('304), -01252 ('455), -01253 ('790), -01254 ('475), plus PGR2025-00063 ('475) and PGR2025-00064 ('790) — arguing collateral estoppel from the '533 and '484 IPRs; and in a notable 2026 development, the Director vacated institution of IPR2025-01253 and denied the petition after concluding the '790 was AIA-era and PGR-eligible in PGR2026-00003 (Director Review decision). Third, market context: Ōura is the category leader in smart rings just as Samsung's Galaxy Ring launched into the same space and Omni has separately sued Whoop in D. Del. (*Omni MedSci

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and patent.

Found it: the docket is Omni MedSci Inc. v. Oura Health Oy (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00289, filed 2026-04-10). Let me dig into the record and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me pin down the new Oura complaint, the '484 PTAB history, and 2025–26 IPRs.

Correction to the case summary first

The docket is now identifiable. 2:26-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex.) is Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Ōura Health Oy, filed 2026-04-10, Nature of Suit 830 (Patent), status open (PACER-derived aggregator entry). It is not an untitled or phantom docket — it is a refiling against a single defendant after Ōura was dismissed from Omni's earlier multi-defendant E.D. Tex. action for improper joinder.

Two points of housekeeping on scope, because they drive everything else:

1. The metadata ("patents at issue: 10,517,484") is partly in tension with the record. The '484 is unquestionably the patent that ties this dispute to the Google Patents '484-family portal, and it was one of six patents in the parent case. But every claim of the '484 (claims 1–23) was adjudged unpatentable by the PTAB on 2025-02-14 (IPR2021-00453, final written decision on remand). Omni separately dismissed its '484 claims in its parallel Delaware suit against WHOOP. Whether the April 2026 Ōura complaint actually pleads the '484 (as opposed to the '868/'533/'304/'455/'790) is the single most important thing I could not verify — see the confidence table at the end. I have treated the '484 as "at issue" per your metadata but flagged where that creates a logical problem.
2. Document numbers for the new case (Dkt. 1, 2, 3…) are not verified. Everything below with a docket cite is either from the parent case (2:24-cv-01070), the PTAB record, or the Federal Circuit — those I can cite. For the 2026 case I can confirm the filing event and little more.

---

I. Pre-history: the parent case and why this docket exists

2024-12-20 — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Samsung Elecs. Am., Fossil Group, Fossil Stores I, Fossil Partners, L.P., OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen), and Ōura Health Oy, No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Gilstrap, J.; Payne, M.J.). Complaint asserted five patents — the '868, '533, '484, '304 and '455 — against an accused set spanning Galaxy watches/rings, Fossil smartwatches, OnePlus wearables, and the Ōura Ring (Gen 1–4), the Ōura app, and Ōura Cloud. A First Amended Complaint filed 2025-03-06 added U.S. 12,193,790. The joinder theory was expressly "significant overlap of the components of the accused systems." (Complaint ¶¶1–40; Ex. 1090 in PGR2025-00064.)

2025-06-03 — Samsung/Fossil/Ōura invalidity contentions served (Ex. 2002 in IPR2025-01250).

2025-08-27 → 2025-08-29 — Defendants moved to stay pending the newly filed PTAB challenges; Judge Gilstrap denied the stay two days later (Exs. 2005–2006 in IPR2025-01250). That denial is the key procedural fact that shaped everything after: the E.D. Tex. case kept moving while the PTAB petitions ripened.

Ōura's two motions to dismiss — Dkt. 68 (Second Amended Complaint) and Dkt. 83 (Third Amended Complaint). Magistrate Judge Payne issued an R&R (Dkt. 146) recommending grant in part. Omni objected (Dkt. 159).

2026-03-31 — Order adopting R&R (Judge Gilstrap). Omni's objections overruled; Dkt. 68 denied as moot; Dkt. 83 granted as to improper joinder, otherwise denied. (govinfo, USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01070, ECF No. 1 / order entry.) This is the direct cause of the new docket: dismissal for misjoinder is without prejudice to refiling against Ōura alone.

**2026-04-10 — Complaint filed, No. 2:26-cv-002

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with searches against the docket and patent litigation portals.

No direct hit yet. Let me narrow on the patent owner and the Marshall Division docket.

Now I've identified the case: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Oura Health Oy, 2:26-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex., filed ~Apr. 10, 2026). Let me confirm the docket and plaintiff's counsel.

Case identification (first, because the metadata was incomplete)

The docket is Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Oura Health Oy, No. 2:26-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Filed April 10, 2026. Patent-in-suit family includes U.S. 10,517,484 (the case metadata's patent), and the complaint also pleads U.S. 9,055,868 and 9,651,533 against the Ōura Ring (Gen 1–4), the Ōura app, and Ōura Cloud.

No. 2:26-cv-00289 is not a stand-alone case — it is the lead case in a consolidated set. A June 17, 2026 order by Judge Payne in the severed OnePlus action directed that "the above-captioned cases are CONSOLIDATED for all pre-trial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:26-cv-289," with individual cases remaining active for trial. See PacerMonitor docket for Omni MedSci, Inc. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00472 (Dkt. 3). Companion 2026 actions include 2:26-cv-00356 (Samsung), 2:26-cv-00470 (Fossil), and 2:26-cv-00472 (OnePlus); the predecessor case is 2:24-cv-01070.

Verification caveat — please read before relying

PACER/CM-ECF for the 289 docket is paywalled and I could not pull the 289 docket sheet itself in this session. The roster below is built from three converging sources: (1) the CM/ECF calendar/participant printout reproduced as an exhibit in an unrelated IPR (covering 2:24-cv-01070, same plaintiff and same consolidated defense group); (2) the public docket for the parallel 2026 Omni MedSci filings, where the same plaintiff's team appears; and (3) Omni MedSci's own PTAB powers of attorney. I have flagged each attorney by confidence level. Nothing below is invented, but before filing anything that depends on service or lead-counsel designation in 289, confirm against the 289 docket sheet directly.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

National / lead patent counsel — Nixon Peabody LLP

Jennifer Hayes — lead counsel (for PTAB purposes; presumptive lead trial counsel)
Nixon Peabody LLP, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100, Los Angeles, CA 90071. USPTO Reg. No. 50,845.
Note: Omni MedSci's designated Lead Counsel in every related PTAB proceeding (e.g., IPR2025-01249, IPR2025-01250, PGR2025-00063/00064) and the architect of Omni's defense of the '533 and '484 families against Samsung, Fossil, Ōura, and OnePlus. Source: Omni MedSci Power of Attorney, IPR2025-01250 (Aug. 26, 2025).

Daniel Steven Stringfield — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 5200, Chicago, IL 60602. USPTO Reg. No. 68,677.
Note: Named as back-up counsel on Omni's PTAB powers of attorney and listed on the E.D. Tex. participant printout for 2:24-cv-01070.

Timothy Paul Maloney — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL. USPTO Reg. No. 38,233.
Note: Same PTAB/district-court Omni team.

Daniel D. Georgiev — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL. USPTO Reg. No. 80,647.
Note: Same PTAB/district-court Omni team.

Benjamin Robert Holt — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, 799 9th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001. USPTO Reg. No. 78,605.

Angelo J. Christopher — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL. USPTO Reg. No. 81,594.

Corey Leggett — back-up counsel
Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, CA. USPTO Reg. No. 70,017.

Peter Krusiewicz — attorney of record (firm not independently confirmed)
Listed on the E.D. Tex. participant printout for 2:24-cv-01070 as representing Omni MedSci. I could not independently confirm his firm; given the team composition he is most likely Nixon Peabody, but treat that as inference.

Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello — attorney of record (firm not independently confirmed)
Listed on the same 2:24-cv-01070 printout for Omni MedSci. Firm not independently verified in this session.

Ty William Wilson — attorney of record (firm not independently confirmed)
Entered an appearance for Omni MedSci in the parallel 2:26-cv-00356 (Samsung) on Sept. 29, 2026 (Dkt. 34), and appeared in 2:24-cv-01070. Firm not verified.

Taylor E. Pfeifer — attorney of record (firm not independently confirmed)
Notice of appearance for Omni MedSci in 2:26-cv-00356 filed Oct. 2026 (Dkt. 39). Firm not verified.

Local / Texas counsel — The Davis Firm, P.C.

William E. Davis, III — local counsel; filed the complaint
The Davis Firm, P.C., Longview, Texas (office location as generally reported; not re-verified here).
Note: The E.D. Tex. filer of record on the Omni MedSci complaints — the 2026 Samsung complaint (No. 2:26-cv-00356, Dkt. 1) bears his name and ECF signature, and he is listed for plaintiff on the 2:24-cv-01070 participant printout. A frequent East Texas patent local-counsel name in Marshall Division filings. Because E.D. Tex. practice requires a local sponsor and the 289 complaint was filed in the same wave, it is highly likely he is counsel of record in 289 — but I could not confirm the 289 signature block directly.

Status notes

• Nothing indicates sealed or ex parte filing of counsel. The complaint and docket entries are public; the "Ex Parte" label in the ex parte AI-Lab URL is a site artifact, not a court designation.
• I could not verify a distinct "lead counsel" designation under Local Rule AT-2 / CV-5 in 289. In E.D. Tex. the first filing must designate lead counsel; that designation is not visible in the sources I could access.
• Two attorneys on plaintiff's broader team remain firm-unverified (Krusiewicz, Chiaviello, Wilson, Pfeifer). Given that Wilson and Pfeifer entered appearances only in the parallel Samsung case, it is possible they have not yet appeared in 289 — do not assume they are on the 289 service list.
• For completeness on the other side (not requested, but useful context): Ōura Health Oy is represented by Mayer Brown LLP — Jasjit S. Vidwan (Washington, DC), Robert G. Pluta (Chicago), and Julia Haines (Washington, DC), per Ōura's IPR powers of attorney and Law360 firm counsel pages keyed to the April 10, 2026 Omni MedSci v. Oura filing.

Recommended next step

Pull the 289 docket sheet via PACER (ECF No. 1 and the Rule 7.1/lead-counsel designation) to (a) confirm which Nixon Peabody attorneys actually entered appearances in 289 rather than only in 356/470/472, and (b) capture the lead-counsel designation language verbatim.

I'll research counsel for Ōura Health Oy in this case, building on the Law360 attorney listings already flagged.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Ōura Health Oy, No. 2:26-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line and a sourcing caveat up front. I was not able to open the PACER docket sheet for 2:26-cv-00289, so I cannot cite a docket number for any notice of appearance in this case, and no court order in 00289 names counsel. What follows is built from two verified sources: (1) Law360's attorney-case pages, which tie specific Mayer Brown and Nixon Peabody attorneys to an April 10, 2026 E.D. Tex. case captioned Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Oura Health Oy; and (2) the CM/ECF attorney lists and signature blocks from the parent case, 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP, where the Ōura defense team is documented. Treat the 00289 lineup as highly probable but not docket-verified; treat the 01070 lineup as verified.

---

1. Correction to the earlier section (flag as required)

The prior overview listed "Nixon Peabody's Timothy Maloney" among the attorneys surfaced by Law360 for the April 10, 2026 case, alongside Mayer Brown's Vidwan and Haines. Maloney is plaintiff-side, not defense. The E.D. Tex. CM/ECF calendar report in 2:24-cv-01070 lists "Timothy Paul Maloney representing OMNI MEDSCI, INC." (as does Daniel D. Georgiev), and Law360's Maloney and Georgiev pages both show the April 10, 2026 Omni MedSci v. Oura Health Oy entry (Maloney, Law360; Georgiev, Law360). Nixon Peabody is Omni's firm — its service mailbox omni@nixonpeabody.com appears throughout the PTAB service correspondence. Do not carry Maloney forward as Ōura's counsel.

---

2. Ōura's defense team — Mayer Brown LLP (national/lead)

Service/coordination note: Ōura's dedicated service address in the litigation and PTAB matters is Oura-Omni@mayerbrown.com, used in the parties' service emails (service email, Nov. 11, 2025).

Note on the address: Law360 renders Vidwan's office as "1919 K St, NW," but every primary document — the Ōura powers of attorney and the JCCS signature block — gives 1999 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Use 1999 K Street.

---

3. Local counsel — Potter Minton, PC (probable, unconfirmed for 00289)

No other local-counsel firm appears anywhere in the Ōura record; the Cherry Johnson Siegmund James and Fish & Richardson names in the PTAB papers belong to the Samsung/Fossil/OnePlus petitioners, not Ōura.

---

4. In-house

---

5. What is verified vs. not

Verified (documented):

• Mayer Brown LLP and Potter Minton PC are Ōura's litigation firms, with the named attorneys above, in the parent case 2:24-cv-01070 — via the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Nov. 21, 2025) signature block and the CM/ECF attorney list reproduced in an IPR exhibit (Ex. 1079, Gilstrap calendar report).
• The same firm's IPR/PGR representation of Ōura, with Vidwan and Pluta as named practitioners of record.
• Law360 attributes Vidwan, Choi, and Haines to the April 10, 2026 00289 case for Ōura.

Not verified / open items:

• No PACER docket entry for 00289 was accessible, so no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice motions, and no lead-counsel designation in 00289 are confirmed. It is possible Ōura had not yet appeared when the third-party indexes were last crawled (complaint filed April 10, 2026; a foreign defendant's answer deadline would run well into mid-2026).
• Julia Haines's exact role (whether she signed the 00289 complaint response, an answer, or a 12(b) motion) is unknown.
• Whether Hassett/Potter Minton entered in 00289 is unconfirmed.
• Whether any additional Mayer Brown office (e.g., Houston or Chicago) supplied counsel is unconfirmed; the 01070 record shows DC + Chicago only.
• Judge assignment in 00289 remains unconfirmed (see earlier section), so I cannot cross-check counsel against a JRG/RSP docket header.

Suggested next checks: PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00289, Dkts. 1–15 (look for "Notice of Appearance," "Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice," and the Rule 7(a) corporate-disclosure/lead-counsel designations); Law360's "counsel" tab on the 00289 case page; and the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF "CalEvents" attorney report for 00289, which is the same report that produced the attorney list for 01070 and would settle the question in one pull.