Untitled case

PGR2025-00063 involves a consortium of petitioners, including [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.), [Samsung Electronics America Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc.), Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475 owned by Omni Medsci Inc.. The petitioners are prominent companies in the consumer electronics and wearables industries, with Samsung known for its diverse electronics including smartwatches, Fossil for its fashion and smartwatches, Oura Health for its smart rings, and OnePlus for mobile devices and wearables. Omni Medsci Inc. is a patent owner that has previously asserted patents against technology companies, suggesting it operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475, falls under Technology Center 2800, which covers Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components, and generally relates to biosensor technology, which is highly relevant to wearable health and fitness devices. While specific accused products are not detailed in the PGR context, the petitioners' business areas strongly imply that various smartwatches, smart rings, and other wearable health monitoring devices are the allegedly infringing technologies.

This case is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Its status is "Not Instituted - Procedural". This status typically indicates that the petition did not meet the procedural requirements for institution, or was denied institution for discretionary reasons, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge itself. The PTAB has increasingly exercised discretion in denying institution of IPRs and PGRs, sometimes based on factors like parallel district court litigation or new policies emphasizing U.S. manufacturing. The petition for PGR2025-00063 itself notes ongoing district court litigation involving Omni Medsci, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas (e.g., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP), a common venue for patent infringement lawsuits. A related Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01254) for the same patent, 12268475, was instituted, suggesting that while this PGR faced a procedural hurdle, challenges to the patent's validity are proceeding in a different forum at the PTAB.

The case is notable due to the collective action of multiple prominent consumer electronics companies challenging a patent held by Omni Medsci Inc., an entity that has previously been involved in patent disputes with major tech players like Apple. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome for this particular PGR highlights the increasing importance of procedural and discretionary factors at the PTAB, which can significantly impact a petitioner's ability to challenge patent validity, especially in the context of parallel district court litigation. The involvement of several leading wearable technology companies underscores the patent's potential impact on the burgeoning market for health and fitness monitoring devices. The concurrent IPR proceeding for the same patent suggests a bifurcated strategy by the petitioners to invalidate the patent, emphasizing the strategic complexities of patent challenges in high-stakes technology areas.

The key legal developments for patent 12268475 primarily revolve around a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), designated PGR2025-00063. No parallel patent infringement litigation in a district court involving patent 12268475 has been identified in the available records.

PGR Proceeding - PGR2025-00063

• Filing & Parties (2025-08-05): On August 5, 2025, a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition, PGR2025-00063, was filed against U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475. The petitioners included Fossil Stores I Inc., Fossil Group Inc., Oura Health Oy, Samsung Electronics America Inc., OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd., Fossil Partners, L.P., and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. The patent owner is Omni Medsci Inc. The patent falls under Technology Center 2800, which covers Semiconductors, Electrical, and Optical Systems and Components.
• Outcome - Not Instituted - Procedural (2025-12-01): The PTAB rendered a decision on December 1, 2025, to not institute the Post-Grant Review, with the status recorded as "Not Instituted - Procedural." The specific procedural reason for the non-institution is not detailed in the available public records.

Absence of Identified Patent Infringement Litigation

As of the current date, searches for district court patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475 have not yielded any identified cases. Therefore, the primary legal development concerning this patent has been the PTAB's Post-Grant Review proceeding, which concluded without institution on procedural grounds.

In PGR2025-00063, the petitioners are Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd..

Based on available information for PTAB proceedings and related patent litigation involving these entities, here are the identified counsel:

For Petitioners (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.):

• O'Melveny & Myers LLP

  • Ryan K. Yagura (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Marc Pensabene (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Laura B. Gore (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Nathaniel Legum (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Mark Liang (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Bill Trac (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Eric T. Ong (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Note: This team represented Samsung in an Eastern District of Texas case against Oura.

• Gillam & Smith

  • Melissa R. Smith (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Note: Melissa R. Smith represented Samsung in an Eastern District of Texas case against Oura.

• Mayer Brown

  • Jasjit S. Vidwan (Counsel in related litigation).
  • James A. Fussell, III (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Saqib J. Siddiqui (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Bryan C. Nese (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Michael L. Lindinger (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Tiffany A. Miller (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Alison T. Gelsleichter (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Amanda E. Stephenson (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Seth W. Bruneel (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Courtney Krawice (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Séké Godo (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Paul Choi (Counsel in related litigation).
  • So Ra Ko (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Andrew Huntsinger (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Robert G. Pluta (Counsel in related litigation).
  • Note: This team represented Oura in an ITC complaint against Samsung and others.

Please note that while these attorneys and firms have represented the petitioners in related patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, the specific counsel of record for PGR2025-00063 was not explicitly identified in a direct search for this specific PTAB case, which was denied institution on procedural grounds. PTAB filings are generally publicly available, but specific appearances for a case denied institution may not be as prominent as for instituted cases. The listed attorneys represent the parties in other relevant intellectual property disputes, indicating their experience and likely involvement in similar matters.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this PGR, plus the related proceedings, before answering.

Threshold point on "defendant(s)"

PGR2025-00063 has no defendants. It is a PTAB post-grant review, styled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., in which the seven petitioners are the challengers (functionally the plaintiffs) and Omni MedSci, Inc. is the patent owner/respondent — the party that answers the challenge. Because the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section already addressed the petitioner side, this section identifies:

• (A) counsel of record for Omni MedSci, the respondent/patent-owner side (the "defense" of the patent); and
• (B) for completeness, the defense-side counsel in the parallel infringement action where the same seven companies are the named defendants — since the question's phrasing ("defendant(s) in this patent infringement case") most likely points at the E.D. Tex. case that spawned the PGR.

Confidence labels are given per attorney, because the PGR's own papers are only partly visible in the sources I could reach.

---

A. Respondent / Patent Owner side — Omni MedSci, Inc.

PTAB counsel of record: Nixon Peabody LLP (lead and back-up counsel designated in Omni's power of attorney, filed Aug. 25, 2025, in the companion proceeding IPR2025-01250 on the same patent family, and the same Nixon Peabody team appears on all service correspondence captioned "IPR2025-01249–01254 & PGR2025-00063–00064.") Note: I located the POA in the companion IPR and the Nixon Peabody service address omni@nixonpeabody.com in the PGR record, but I did not view the PGR2025-00063 POA itself — registration numbers below should be spot-checked against P-TACTS.

District-court counsel for Omni (not PTAB counsel of record) — the "local counsel" side of the same campaign:

• William E. Davis, III — The Davis Firm, P.C., 213 N. Fredonia St., Suite 230, Longview, TX 75601 (903-230-9090); service OMNI-DF@davisfirm.com. Filed and signed Omni's complaints in E.D. Tex. (e.g., 2:24-cv-01070; 2:25-cv-00483; 2:26-cv-00356; 2:26-cv-00470; 2:26-cv-00472; 2:26-cv-00289) and W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00226.
• Ty William Wilson — The Davis Firm, P.C., Longview, TX; appearance in 2:25-cv-00483, among others.
• In-house/authorized signatory: the POA in the companion IPR was executed by Mohammed Islam (Omni MedSci founder and named inventor) on Aug. 25, 2025.

---

B. If the question means the infringement defendants (petitioners' side)

These are the attorneys who entered appearances / are designated lead and back-up counsel for the seven petitioners in the same challenge campaign, and who correspond as defendants' counsel in Omni MedSci v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.):