Untitled case

PGR2025-00063 involves a consortium of petitioners, including 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., 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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2025-00063 Omni Medsci Inc. counsel", "PGR2025-00063 PTAB Omni Medsci Inc. attorneys", "Omni Medsci Inc. patent litigation counsel", "Omni Medsci Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP counsel", "Omni Medsci Inc. counsel Eastern District of Texas"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the patent infringement case PGR2025-00063.
However, the case PGR2025-00063 is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding at the PTAB, where Omni Medsci Inc. is the Patent Owner, not the defendant. The petitioners (Samsung, Fossil, Oura, OnePlus) are the ones challenging the patent.

Therefore, I need to identify the counsel for Omni Medsci Inc. (the Patent Owner) in the PGR2025-00063 case at the PTAB.

I should also consider the "defendant(s)" in the context of the related district court litigation mentioned (Omni Medsci Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP). In that district court case, Samsung is the defendant. However, the primary focus of the request is PGR2025-00063.

Let's break down the search strategy:

1. Search for counsel representing Omni Medsci Inc. in PGR2025-00063 at the PTAB. This is the direct answer to the request, considering "defendant(s)" refers to the party defending the patent in the PGR.
2. If information for PGR2025-00063 is scarce (due to its "Not Instituted - Procedural" status), I will broaden the search to counsel representing Omni Medsci Inc. in related cases, especially the mentioned district court case (2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP) or the instituted IPR (IPR2025-01254) for the same patent. This might provide clues, though I need to be careful to distinguish roles and cases.

Given the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status for PGR2025-00063, it's possible that Omni Medsci Inc.'s counsel might not have made extensive appearances on the public docket for this specific PGR, or at least not in a way that is easily discoverable through general web search, as the process might have halted early. However, they would have filed preliminary responses or simply monitored the petition.

Let's prioritize finding counsel directly associated with Omni Medsci Inc. in PGR2025-00063. If not, then look for counsel representing Omni Medsci Inc. in the related district court case or IPR for the same patent, explicitly noting the context.In the Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding PGR2025-00063, Omni Medsci Inc. is the Patent Owner, defending its U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475 against challenges from a consortium of petitioners. While the PGR was "Not Instituted - Procedural", counsel for Omni Medsci Inc. can be identified from related patent infringement litigation where Omni Medsci Inc. is the plaintiff.

Omni Medsci Inc. is represented by attorneys from The Davis Firm PC in concurrent district court litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas (e.g., Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP) and the District of Delaware (e.g., Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140-JLH). These cases involve the same or related patents.

The counsel representing Omni Medsci Inc. include:

• William E. Davis, III

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in district court litigation)
  • Firm: The Davis Firm PC, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Regularly represents patent owners in high-stakes patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Ty Wilson

  • Role: Counsel (in district court litigation)
  • Firm: The Davis Firm PC, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Appears alongside William E. Davis, III, representing Omni Medsci Inc. in its enforcement actions.

While these attorneys are identified from related district court proceedings where Omni Medsci Inc. is the plaintiff, their consistent representation of Omni Medsci Inc. in the broader litigation strategy, which includes defending patents challenged at the PTAB, indicates their involvement as counsel of record for Omni Medsci Inc. in these intellectual property disputes. Specific filings in PGR2025-00063 directly naming Omni Medsci's counsel were not readily available, likely due to the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status.