Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 6:23-cv-00478, is currently active in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is Omni MedSci, Inc., an entity characterized as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). Omni MedSci does not manufacture or sell patented products but aims to commercialize its patents through partnerships. The company was founded by Mohammed Islam, a University of Michigan professor who holds numerous patents in optical technology and has founded several related companies. The defendants include major consumer electronics companies: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., known for their wide range of electronic devices including smartphones and wearables; Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., and Fossil Partners, L.P., a fashion design and manufacturing group specializing in watches, jewelry, and other accessories; Oura Health Oy, a Finnish health technology company recognized for its Oura Ring, a smart ring for tracking sleep and physical activity; and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of consumer electronics, particularly smartphones and related accessories.

The primary patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent 9,055,868, which generally relates to a system and method for voice control of medical devices. The accused products are believed to be various wearable devices, such as smartwatches and smart rings, offered by the defendants. For instance, the "Galaxy Watch" is explicitly mentioned in connection with related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Samsung and Omni MedSci. Similarly, the Oura Ring is a key product of Oura Health Oy that would fall under such an accusation.

This case is being heard in the Western District of Texas, a venue frequently chosen by patent plaintiffs, particularly the Waco division, largely due to its predictable case assignment to Judge Alan D. Albright, who has a fast-track scheduling order and a reputation for retaining patent cases. The noteworthiness of this litigation stems from several factors: the plaintiff's business model as an NPE actively asserting patents against multiple prominent operating companies in the competitive wearables market, the specific technical area of voice-controlled medical devices (which can broadly encompass various health-tracking functionalities in wearables), and the presence of parallel PTAB IPR challenges against Omni MedSci's patents by some of the defendants. Notably, prior art has reportedly been found for the '868 patent, which could significantly impact the ongoing litigation.

Cheetah Omni, LLC v. WHOOP, Inc., case number 6:23-cv-00478, filed in the Texas Western District Court, concerns alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868, among others. The litigation has seen significant activity, including motions to dismiss and multiple attempts to stay the case pending parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. The case is currently stayed.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC filed the original complaint for patent infringement against WHOOP, Inc. on June 30, 2023.
• Amended Complaint & Patents Asserted: In its first amended complaint, Cheetah Omni asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,055,868, 9,651,533, 10,517,484, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790, and 12,268,475. Subsequently, Cheetah Omni dismissed its claims related to the '484 patent.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss: WHOOP filed a motion to dismiss Cheetah Omni's first amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part (D.I. 33).
• Initial Motion to Stay: WHOOP filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings (D.I. 36). This motion was denied without prejudice (D.I. 61), largely because the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) had not yet decided whether to institute the requested reviews.
• Renewed Motion to Stay (Granted): After the PTO instituted IPR, ex parte reexamination (EPR), or PGR proceedings for all asserted claims in each of the asserted patents, WHOOP renewed its motion to stay. This renewed motion was conditionally granted (D.I. 98).

Claim Construction (Markman):

• A Joint Claim Construction Disclosure (D.I. 86) has been filed by the parties. However, as of the renewed motion to stay, no claim construction briefs had been filed, indicating that the Markman stage has not been completed.

Discovery Milestones:

• Discovery has commenced in the case. Some documents have been produced, interrogatories served, and at least one deposition taken. Fact discovery is scheduled to close in September 2026, with expert discovery concluding in December 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect:
The district court case is significantly impacted by multiple parallel proceedings at the PTAB concerning the asserted patents:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868: An ex parte reexamination (EPR) of this patent was granted by the PTO in February 2026, based on a petition filed by Samsung. Its resolution does not have a fixed deadline. Additionally, IPR2025-01249, filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. against Omni MedSci, Inc., is related to the '868 patent.
• Other Asserted Patents:
  • IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,651,533, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790, and 12,268,475 were instituted in February 2026 and are expected to conclude by February 2027.
  • A PGR concerning the '790 patent, initiated by WHOOP, was instituted in April 2026 and is anticipated to be completed by April 2027.
• The institution of these PTAB proceedings was the primary reason for the district court granting a stay in the litigation, aiming to simplify the district court proceedings or potentially resolve the case if claims are invalidated.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case is currently in a conditionally stayed posture, awaiting the outcomes of the various IPR, PGR, and EPR proceedings at the PTAB. There have been no trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or final judgments/settlements reported as of today's date, May 23, 2026, due to the active stay.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC in 6:23-cv-00478

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, 6:23-cv-00478 in the Texas Western District Court, is Cheetah Omni, LLC. U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868 is at issue in this case. While direct access to the district court docket for 6:23-cv-00478 was not available to confirm every attorney's appearance, filings in a related Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01249) concerning the same patent, where Omni MedSci, Inc. is the Patent Owner (and likely a related entity to Cheetah Omni, LLC), list the following attorneys from Nixon Peabody LLP. It is highly probable these attorneys also represent Cheetah Omni, LLC in the district court litigation.

Nixon Peabody LLP

• Jennifer Hayes

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in related IPR, likely lead in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation, including IPR and other post-grant review proceedings, with experience successfully arguing motions in district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Daniel S. Stringfield

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR, likely counsel in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: A veteran patent litigator with extensive trial and appellate experience, including before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, focusing on IP acquisition, licensing, and enforcement across various technologies.

• Timothy P. Maloney

  • Role: Counsel (in related IPR, likely counsel in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer with a strong track record in patent litigation, negotiating patent licenses, and handling disputes before the Federal Circuit and in inter partes review proceedings.

• Angelo J. Christopher

  • Role: Counsel (in related IPR, likely counsel in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP (office not specified in provided snippets, but firm is listed).
  • Experience Note: Focuses on resolving patent disputes across a wide range of technologies, with experience in complex international disputes and preparing arguments in IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings.

• Benjamin R. Holt

  • Role: Counsel (in related IPR, likely counsel in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation and prosecution, representing clients in patent infringement cases before U.S. federal courts, ITC investigations, and IPR proceedings, covering a broad range of technologies.

• Dan Georgiev

  • Role: Counsel (in related IPR, likely counsel in district court)
  • Firm & Office: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Handles IP litigation with a focus on patents, trade secrets, and trademarks, and has experience with PTAB matters across various technologies including mobile applications, IoT devices, and medical devices.

Local Counsel:
Based on the available search results, specific local counsel for Cheetah Omni, LLC in case 6:23-cv-00478 in the Western District of Texas have not been explicitly identified. While firms like Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC and Klemchuk PLLC are noted for providing local counsel services in the Western District of Texas for patent cases, there is no direct indication they represent the plaintiff in this particular matter.

In-house Counsel:
No in-house counsel for Cheetah Omni, LLC has been identified through the conducted searches.

The defendant in this patent infringement case, 6:23-cv-00478 in the Texas Western District Court, is Whoop, Inc. The plaintiff is Cheetah Omni, LLC, and the patent at issue is US patent 9055868.

Based on available public records, including Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings related to the patent in question, the following firm and attorneys appear to be representing Whoop, Inc. or related petitioners challenging Omni MedSci, Inc.'s patents, which strongly suggests their involvement in the district court litigation.

Counsel of Record for Whoop, Inc. (Defendant):

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Attorneys:
    • Ricardo J. Bonilla (Partner, Dallas, TX office)
      • Role: Likely lead or co-lead counsel.
      • Experience Note: Bonilla is recognized for his patent litigation work, particularly in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
    • J. Smith (San Diego, CA office)
      • Role: Likely lead or co-lead counsel.
      • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation for technology companies.

Supporting Evidence:

• Whoop, Inc. is a petitioner in several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings challenging patents owned by Omni MedSci, Inc. (the patent owner related to plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC), including U.S. Patent No. 9,055,868.
• These IPR documents list "Fish & Richardson P.C." as counsel for the petitioners, who include Samsung, Fossil Group, Oura Health, OnePlus, and explicitly mention "Petitioner WHOOP, Inc.". Ricardo J. Bonilla from Fish & Richardson's Dallas office and J. Smith from their San Diego office are named as counsel for these petitioners in these related IPR proceedings.
• While these are PTAB proceedings, it is a common practice for the same legal teams to handle both district court litigation and parallel PTAB challenges for their clients.

Note: Without direct access to the PACER docket for case 6:23-cv-00478, it is not possible to confirm every attorney's specific role (e.g., local counsel, in-house) or identify if additional local counsel have formally appeared. However, the consistently named firm and attorneys in the related IPRs strongly indicate their representation of Whoop, Inc. in this patent infringement matter.