Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly across the sources you named.

Good initial hits. Let me verify the patent numbering, the PTAB linkage, and the standing/venue disputes.

Let me nail down the patent identities, the district court venue path, and whether the '722 patent is actually in play against Apple.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The dispute is between Apple Inc., the world's largest consumer-electronics company, and Omni MedSci, Inc., a small Ann Arbor, Michigan optical-sensing company founded by Dr. Mohammed N. Islam, a tenured professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Michigan (who also held a medical-school appointment). Omni's origin story is a university spin-out rather than a classic shell: Dr. Islam filed the provisional applications in 2012 while on unpaid leave from UM, then assigned the resulting patents to Omni on December 17, 2013 (Arnold & Porter, IP Tech. L.J., Oct. 2021). Omni develops near-infrared laser/optical measurement technology but does not compete in the consumer wearable market, and it has been characterized in some coverage as a patent-assertion/"troll"-style litigant while its own filings emphasize a genuine R&D and licensing business. Apple's defense has been coordinated across the PTAB (Apple filed a wave of IPRs in April 2019, IPR2019-00912 through -00917, plus IPR2020-00029/-00175 and IPR2021-00453) with Sidley Austin LLP (Jeffrey P. Kushan, Thomas A. Broughan III, Joshua J. Fougere) as lead appellate counsel; Omni is represented by Brooks Kushman PC (Thomas A. Lewry, John S. LeRoy, Christopher C. Smith) (Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment, No. 2021-1229).

Accused technology. Omni alleges that Apple's optical heart-rate / physiological-sensing functionality in the Apple Watch infringes. The 2018 E.D. Tex. complaint alleged the Watch measures heart rate non-invasively using semiconductor LEDs emitting near-infrared light, lenses that deliver light to skin, detectors synchronized to the LEDs, analog-to-digital conversion, SNR improvement by increasing LED intensity or pulse rate, and transmission of the data to a paired iPhone/iPad and iCloud (complaint, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS (E.D. Tex.)). Later complaints narrowed to Series 3/Series 5 hardware, and Omni's newest June 2026 complaint in W.D. Tex. (No. 7:26-cv-00226) broadens the accused products to Apple Watch Series 6+/Ultra, AirPods with heart-rate/skin sensors, iPhones/iPads with Face ID (dToF) and LiDAR, and iPads (CourtListener docket 73456916); treat those specifics as preliminary, as the docket is new and the public copies are aggregator renderings. The complaint also builds a knowledge/willfulness narrative: Dr. Islam met with roughly ten Apple employees in Cupertino (July 18, 2016) and corresponded with Drs. O'Reilly, Hull and Hendee, and on December 21, 2017 an Apple employee allegedly replied, "We [Apple] don't wish to receive any information about any of your IP."

Patents. (1) U.S. 9,651,533 ("'533") — the patent actually at issue in the appeal captioned here: a wearable (wrist- or ear-worn) optical measurement system with multiple semiconductor light sources, lenses, a synchronized receiver, and a smartphone/tablet/cloud backend, where SNR is improved by increasing light intensity or LED pulse rate. (2) U.S. 9,861,286, 9,757,040, 9,861,698 — sibling patents in the same wearable-optics family asserted in the original 2018 suit. (3) U.S. 10,188,299 — a parent-family patent litigated separately (IPR2020-00175). (4) U.S. 10,517,484 ("'484") — the "smart phone or tablet" / wearable system patent that drove the largest sub-dispute and a second line of Federal Circuit appeals. (5) U.S. 9,995,722 ("'722") — see the caveat below; it belongs to a different Omni family ("Near-infrared time-of-flight imaging," issued June 12, 2018 from application 15/855,201) and I found no evidence it was asserted against Apple (US 2018/0292377 A1).

Procedural posture. The case began in the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III (No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS), a historically plaintiff-friendly patent venue; it was later transferred to the N.D. Cal. (Oakland Division) before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as Nos. 19-cv-05673-YGR / 19-cv-05924-YGR, putting Apple in its home district — a materially less favorable forum for Omni. There, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied Apple's standing motion and certified the ownership question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (certification order, No. 19-cv-05924-YGR). In parallel, the PTAB invalidated the '533 claims: IPR2019-00916, instituted October 18, 2019, issued a Final Written Decision on October 14, 2020 holding claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 unpatentable as obvious (Paper 39); Omni's appeal is No. 2021-1229, and the Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam on June 8, 2022 under Rule 36 (Moore, C.J., Dyk and Chen, JJ.), a nonprecedential summary affirmance (judgment). Related strands: the standing/assignment appeal, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2020-1715, -1716 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (Linn, J., joined by Chen, J.; Newman, J., dissenting), holding UM Bylaw 3.10's "shall be the property of the University" language was at most a promise of a future assignment; the '299 IPR (IPR2020-00175, FWD June 14, 2021, affirmed in No. 2021-2213); and the '484 IPR (IPR2021-00453), where the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024) affirmed the Board's "identify an object" construction but held the Board abused its discretion under Axonics in refusing to consider Apple's reply arguments and remanded; a second FWD issued February 14, 2025, and Omni's appeal is pending as No. 25-1646 (nonprecedential opinion, June 21, 2024; IPR2021-00453 record).

Why it matters. Three reasons. First, the assignment/standing ruling is the marquee holding: it rejects automatic transfer of faculty inventions under broadly worded university bylaws, and PhRMA filed an amicus supporting rehearing because the decision "retroactively and instantaneously changed the ownership of patents across the country" for company-inventor assignment language (PhRMA amicus, No. 20-1715). Second, it is a PTAB-linkage case: nearly every Omni patent asserted against Apple has been through an IPR, and the June 2022 Rule 36 affirmance effectively wiped out the '533 as an Apple claim. Third, the dispute is expanding rather than ending — Omni has sued Samsung, Fossil, Oura, OnePlus (E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP, Judge Gilstrap) and WHOOP (D. Del. No. 1:25-cv-00140), and those defendants filed a 2025 wave of PTAB challenges, including PGR2025-00063 and IPR2025-01249–01253, plus WHOOP's IPR2025-01583 on the '722 patent — against the backdrop of Apple's multibillion-dollar health-sensing roadmap and reported non-invasive glucose-monitoring ambitions.

Verification caveats. Two metadata items don't match the public record and should be reconciled before this summary is finalized. (1) The '722 patent. The patent actually at issue in Federal Circuit No. 2021-1229 is U.S. 9,651,533, not U.S. 9,995,722. I could not find any pleading, IPR, or docket entry tying 9,995,722 to the Apple litigation; it appears in proceedings involving WHOOP and Samsung. This confirms the existing summary's note that '722 is "not confirmed as asserted." (2) Caption. The Federal Circuit judgment in No. 2021-1229 lists Omni MedSci as appellant and Apple as appellee, because Apple was the IPR petitioner and prevailed below; the Apple-first caption likely derives from the underlying PTAB proceeding. On matters of opinion citation, the specific F.4th cite for the August 2, 2021 standing decision, the exact claim-by-claim outcome of the February 14, 2025 '484 remand FWD, and the full patent list in the June 2026 W.D. Tex. complaint, I'm relying on secondary/aggregator sources I could not independently confirm docket-by-docket.

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and Federal Circuit records.

Let me dig into the specific patents and the parallel proceedings.

Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 2021-1229 (Fed. Cir.) — Litigation Chronology

Record note before the chronology

Two discrepancies between the supplied metadata and the public record should be flagged at the outset, because they affect how the case is read:

• Caption/party alignment. The Federal Circuit docket and the judgment in No. 2021-1229 style the appeal as Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., with Omni as appellant and Apple as appellee — because the appeal was taken by Omni from a PTAB inter partes review in which Apple was the petitioner. The judgment text reads: "OMNI MEDSCI, INC., Appellant v. APPLE INC., Appellee, 2021-1229, Appeal from … the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00916." (Fed. Cir. judgment, ECF 69, via Samsung Ex. 1009). I treat the case number as authoritative and note the styling.
• Patent at issue. No. 2021-1229 arose from IPR2019-00916 on U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533 ("the '533 patent"), not on the '722 patent. U.S. 9,995,722 is a member of the same Omni MedSci family (semiconductor-source NIR measurement devices with improved SNR) and is listed as a related patent in the '484 petition and other filings (Knobbe petition exhibit, '484 related patents), and it appears in later PTAB mandatory notices (e.g., IPR2025-01583, Patent Owner Mandatory Notice). I could not confirm the '722 patent was itself asserted against Apple in any of the Apple–Omni suits, which is consistent with the "not confirmed as asserted" note in the existing case summary.

---

I. Underlying district court litigation (2018–2021)

2018 — Omni files the first infringement actions (E.D. Tex.).
Omni MedSci sued Apple in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS (Judge Robert W. Schroeder III), asserting U.S. 9,651,533 and 9,861,286. A second E.D. Tex. action, No. 2:18-cv-00429-RWS, asserted the '484 patent, and was later terminated. (Fed. Cir. opinion recites: "In 2018, Omni sued Apple in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,651,533 and 9,861,286…" — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1715 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021); '484 assertion list from Knobbe petition.)

Apple's answer/counterclaim posture — motion to dismiss for lack of standing (not an invalidity counterclaim). Apple did not answer on the merits first; it moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing Omni lacked standing/ownership because inventor Dr. Mohammed N. Islam's University of Michigan employment agreement and UM Bylaw 3.10 ("shall be the property of the University") automatically assigned the patents to UM, leaving nothing for Dr. Islam to assign to Omni. (See Arnold & Porter client alert, Oct. 2021; Vorys client alert, 2021-08-11.)

2018-11-01 / 2018-12-20 — Patent Local Rule disclosures and claim construction briefing. Omni served Preliminary Proposed Claim Constructions under P.R. 4-2 on 2018-11-01 and filed its opening claim construction brief on 2018-12-20 (both later used as PTAB exhibits: PTACTS petition exhibit list).

2019-05-07 / 2019-05-24 — Claim and prior-art elections (discovery-scoping milestones). Omni served an Amended Final Election of Asserted Claims on 2019-05-07; Apple filed its Final Election of Asserted Prior Art on 2019-05-24 (PTACTS exhibit list).

2019-06-24 — Markman ruling (E.D. Tex.). The court issued a Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS, Dkt. 211 (and a parallel order at Dkt. 152 in 2:18-cv-00429-RWS) (exhibit citations in IPR2025-01250). I was unable to retrieve the substance of the constructions from the sources available; the order exists on the docket and is cited repeatedly in later PTAB filings.

2019-08-14 — Apple's motion to dismiss denied; venue transfer. The E.D. Tex. court held Bylaw 3.10 "was not a present automatic assignment of title, but, at most, a statement of future intention to assign," and denied dismissal (ECF No. 276). The case was then transferred to the Northern District of California (Fed. Cir. 20-1715 opinion).

2019-11-06 / 2019-11-20 / 2019-11-25 — N.D. Cal. proceedings. The transferred case was docketed as No. 4:19-cv-05924-YGR (Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) (Justia docket). The court denied Apple leave to file a motion for reconsideration of subject-matter jurisdiction (2019-11-25, Dkt. 346), and stayed a companion case, No. 19-cv-05673-YGR (2019-11-20, DI 219) (stay order cited at IPR2025 petition).

2020-01-22 — Partial dismissal by stipulation. The court granted a joint stipulation dismissing U.S. 9,757,040 and U.S. 9,861,286 from 19-cv-05924 (Dkt. 352) (Justia).

2020-01-24 — Third/fourth suits: No. 3:20-cv-00563-YGR (N.D. Cal.), asserting the '484 patent (RPX Insight).

2020-02-14 — Interlocutory certification. The N.D. Cal. court certified the standing/ownership question for interlocutory appeal (Dkt. 354 in 19-cv-05924) (Justia).

2020-04-28 — Stay pending interlocutory appeal. In 20-cv-00563, the court granted a stay pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of the standing question (DI 49) — the strategic consequence being that district court discovery and Markman activity largely froze while validity was litigated at the PTAB.

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions in the Apple–Omni dispute. Based on everything located, this dispute never reached a jury; it was resolved through IPR invalidation plus stays/dismissals rather than a merits trial.

---

II. Interlocutory appeal on ownership/standing (Nos. 2020-1715, -1716)

2021-08-02 — Federal Circuit affirms denial of dismissal. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2020-1715, -1716 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (Linn, J., joined by Chen, J.; Newman, J., dissenting). Holding: "shall be the property of the University" is "most naturally read as a statement of intended disposition and a promise of a potential future assignment, not as a present automatic transfer," so Dr. Islam's assignment to Omni was effective and Omni had standing. (Finnegan summary, 2021-08-05; Winston & Strawn, 2021-08-30; McDermott/National Law Review.) Note: some secondary sources give the date as 2021-08-20; the weight of sources says Aug. 2, 2021.

Fall 2021 — Apple sought en banc review. Apple petitioned for rehearing en banc, supported by amicus briefs from the Regents of the University of Michigan, PhRMA, and others, arguing conflict with Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011), and destabilization of assignment law (UM Regents amicus brief; PhRMA amicus brief, filed 2021-10-13/14). I could not confirm the denial date from the sources reviewed; no en banc opinion issued, and the panel decision stands as the operative ruling on assignment/standing.

---

III. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

2019-04-10 — Apple files a wave of IPR petitions (the one-year-bar deadline). Apple filed at least eight petitions: IPR2019-00910 and -00917 ('040); -00911 and -00914 ('286); -00912 and -00915 ('698); -00913 and -00916 ('533). Omni argued in its preliminary responses that the petitions were filed on the last possible day and should be discretionarily denied under § 314(a) as inefficient "supplements" to the district court case ("Petitioner waited until the last possible date to file parallel IPR petitions") (Omni Preliminary Response, via PTACTS).

2019-10-18 — IPR2019-00916 instituted on all challenged claims of the '533 patent (Paper 16). The parallel -00913 '533 petition was not the vehicle that drove the final decision (IPR2019-00916 docket).

2019-12-11 — IPR2020-00175 filed against U.S. 10,188,299 ('299 patent); instituted 2020-06-17; oral argument 2021-03-25 (Law360 case page).

2020-10-14 — Final Written Decision in IPR2019-00916: all challenged claims of the '533 patent unpatentable. Claims 5, 7–10, 13, and 15–17 held obvious under § 103 over Lisogurski + Carlson and Lisogurski + Carlson + Mannheimer (Paper 39; panel Obermann, Horvath, Fenick, with a Horvath concurrence) (FWD text).

2020-11-12 — Omni's notice of appeal raising (i) improper rewriting of "configured to increase SNR" into a "capable of" test, (ii) the Board's sua sponte new rationale, (iii) improper combination of Lisogurski and Carlson, and (iv) an Arthrex Appointments Clause challenge (Notice of Appeal, Paper 40). This became No. 2021-1229.

2021-06-14 — FWD in IPR2020-00175 ('299 patent): all challenged claims unpatentable, principally on Lisogurski alone (the Board reasoned that a prior-art system "sometimes" increasing LED pulse rate sufficed, citing Hewlett-Packard v. Mustek). Omni appealed as No. 2021-2213, again attacking the "capable of"/configuration issue (Omni Notice of Appeal in IPR2020-00175).

2021-01-22 / 2021-08-06 / 2022-08-03 — The '484 IPR (IPR2021-00453). Apple petitioned on the '484 patent; institution 2021-08-06 (Paper 7); first FWD 2022-08-03 (Paper 22): claims 1, 2, 7, 15–23 unpatentable, but Apple failed to show claims 3–6 and 8–14 unpatentable; claim 16 held unpatentable (Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 2023-1034, 2024 WL 3084509 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024)).

2021-12-06 — N.D. Cal. stays 20-cv-00563 pending IPR2021-00453 and administratively closes the case (Dkt. 51/52): "this case is hereby STAYED pending final resolution of the inter partes review proceeding IPR2021-00453 … ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED" (stay order text). This is the last substantive district court event I could document for the Apple case (RPX lists a latest docket entry of 2024-03-08 in 20-cv-563).

---

IV. No. 2021-1229 — disposition

2022-06-08 — AFFIRMED without opinion (Fed. Cir. R. 36). Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2021-1229, 2022 WL 2062168 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2022). Per curiam (Moore, C.J., Dyk and Chen, JJ.): "THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED … AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36." (judgment, ECF 69). Counsel: Thomas A. Lewry, John S. LeRoy, Christopher C. Smith (Brooks Kushman PC) for Omni; Jeffrey P. Kushan, Thomas A. Broughan III, Joshua J. Fougere, Ching-Lee Fukuda, Michael Roberts (Sidley Austin LLP) for Apple.

Effect: because it was a Rule 36 summary affirmance, the FWD cancelling claims 5, 7–10, 13, 15–17 of the '533 patent became final and non-appealable, with no precedential claim-construction law created. Omni's Arthrex and claim-construction arguments died with the summary affirmance. This is the terminal event for the '533 patent in the Apple–Omni dispute: the asserted '533 claims no longer exist, which moots the corresponding district court infringement claims.

Related '299 appeal (No. 2021-2213) was likewise resolved in Apple's favor; PTAB records list a "'299 CAFC affirmance" at Paper 32 of IPR2020-00175 (IPR2025-01250 exhibit list). I could not pin the affirmance date from the sources reviewed.

---

V. Subsequent proceedings in the same family (context for the '722 patent and present posture)

• 2023-1034 → 2024-06-21 Fed. Cir. opinion (nonprecedential). Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., 2024 WL 3084509. The court affirmed the Board's construction of "identify an object" ("to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing") but held the *Board abused its discretion under Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)* in refusing to consider Apple's alternative reply argument that Lisogurski and Tran disclose the identifying limitation under Omni's own construction. Disposition: affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded (opinion PDF). A petition for rehearing was filed thereafter (petition PDF).
• 2025-02-14 — FWD on remand (IPR2021-00453, Paper 26): claims 3–6 and 8–14 unpatentable, so all claims of the '484 patent stand unpatentable (IPR2025-01250 exhibit list).
• 2025-04-11 — Omni notices appeal of the remand FWD → Fed. Cir. No. 25-1646 (pending) (exhibit list).
• 2024–2026 — Omni's enforcement campaign shifts to Apple's competitors. Omni sued Samsung, Fossil, Oura, OnePlus and others in E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (Judge Gilstrap), later adding second-amended complaints (2025-05-19) and new suits against Oura (2:26-cv-00289) and Fossil (2:26-cv-00470) (PGR2025-00063 docket; case pages).
• 2025-08-05 — Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus file IPR2025-01249 through -01253 and PGR2025-00063, re-attacking patents including the '533 patent (IPR2025-01250) — i.e., Apple's 2019 petition and the resulting Federal Circuit affirmance are now cited as prior PTAB/Federal Circuit history in the new challenges (docket).
• 2025-12-01 — PGR2025-00063 denied on discretionary grounds; the Board declined to institute an IPR on the Omni wearable patent in light of the separate PGR (Law360 reporting, dated 2026-05-19) (Law360).
• A WHOOP challenge (IPR2025-01583) names U.S. 9,995,722 in its mandatory notices (Patent Owner notice filed 2025-10-17) (PDF).
• E.D. Tex. trial setting: PTAB filings in the 2025–2026 wave reference an August 17, 2026 E.D. Tex. trial date ("EDTX Trials 2026-08-17") in the Omni v. Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus litigation (docket). I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether that trial occurred or its outcome.

---

VI. Bottom line

Present posture of the tracked case: final and closed. No. 2021-1229 ended on 2022-06-08 with a Rule 36 affirmance of the PTAB's cancellation of the asserted '533 claims. The live Omni–Apple-family litigation energy is now in (a) the '484 appeal No. 25-1646, and (b) Omni's E.D. Tex. campaign against Samsung, Fossil, Oura and OnePlus with the corresponding 2025 PTAB challenges.

Known gaps / low-confidence items: the substance of the 2019-06-24 Markman constructions; the date en banc rehearing was denied in 20-1715; the exact disposition (dismissal vs. administrative closure) of N.D. Cal. 19-cv-05924 and 19-cv-05673; and whether the '722 patent was ever pleaded against Apple. These are not supported by the sources retrieved and should be verified against PACER/PTAB directly before being relied on.

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with several searches.

I found the key judgment. Let me dig into the docket and briefs for case 2021-1229 to confirm Apple's counsel of record.

I have the judgment's counsel listing. Now let me verify the docket sheet, check for any in-house Apple counsel, and confirm roles/experience.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff (Apple Inc.), Fed. Cir. No. 2021-1229

One important threshold point on posture. The case metadata tells me to treat Apple as the plaintiff. As a matter of the public record, however, the Federal Circuit docket caption for No. 2021-1229 is Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., with Omni as Appellant and Apple as Appellee — an appeal by Omni from the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2019-00916, where Apple was the Petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff-side party below). So the "plaintiff's" advocates here are the Sidley Austin team that represented Apple both as IPR petitioner and as Federal Circuit appellee.

Also flagged: the metadata lists US 9,995,722 as the patent at issue, but I could not confirm the '722 patent was part of this appeal. The record for No. 2021-1229 (Appeal from IPR2019-00916) concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533 (the "’533 patent"), whose challenged claims 5, 7–10, 13, 15–17 were held unpatentable and affirmed by Rule 36 judgment. Treat the '722 designation as unverified for this appeal.

---

Counsel of record for Apple Inc. (Appellee / IPR Petitioner)

The authoritative roster is the court's own judgment, Fed. Cir. No. 21-1229, ECF No. 69 (June 8, 2022) (Rule 36; per curiam: Moore, C.J., Dyk, Chen, JJ.),* which names the following as counsel "for appellee":

* Judgment text: "JEFFREY PAUL KUSHAN, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by THOMAS ANTHONY BROUGHAN, III, JOSHUA JOHN FOUGERE; CHING-LEE FUKUDA, New York, NY; MICHAEL ROBERTS, Dallas, TX." See the disposition reproduced at CourtListener/Docket Alarm, ECF 69 and Cetient.

Corroboration from the docket services: Justia's Federal Circuit docket for 21-1229 lists the appellee's (Apple's) attorney of record as Jeffrey Paul Kushan, Esq. (dockets.justia.com; UniCourt).

Sidley attorneys appearing in Apple's filings for the related Omni matters (not all confirmed on the 21-1229 docket)

Per Apple's Rule 26.1 certificates of interest and briefs in the companion appeal No. 20-1715 (Apple's opening brief; petition for rehearing) and the IPR record, the wider Sidley Austin team included Vernon M. Winters (Los Angeles), Brooke S. Böll, Sharon Lee, Kelley A. Conaty (formerly), David T. Pritikin (formerly), David Anderson (formerly), Anna Weinberg (formerly), and Hamilton C. Simpson (formerly), plus Matthew (Matt) Hopkins, who appeared with Kushan/Broughan at the IPR2019-00916 oral hearing. Several of these are expressly listed as "formerly" on the matter, so treat them as historical rather than current 21-1229 counsel. (Fed. Cir. 20-1715 Apple corrected opening brief)

In-house / local counsel

• No Apple in-house attorney appears on the Federal Circuit docket for 21-1229, and the appeal was handled by Sidley; I found no separately docketed in-house appearance.
• No local counsel of record on the Federal Circuit docket. (Note: in the underlying E.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. infringement suits, Gillam & Smith LLP — Melissa R. Smith, Bobby Lamb — appeared alongside Sidley in the trial court, per Apple's certificate of interest, but that is not an appellate appearance here.)
• Caution: the IPR2019-00916 oral-hearing transcript records Kushan noting that "our client Natalie Pous" was on the line. I could not verify Ms. Pous's employer, title, or whether she is Apple in-house counsel, so I do not list her as counsel of record.

If you actually intended the opposite party (Omni MedSci)

In the underlying infringement suits Omni MedSci was the plaintiff, and it is the Appellant in 21-1229. Its Federal Circuit counsel were Thomas A. Lewry (argued), John S. LeRoy, and Christopher C. Smith, of Brooks Kushman P.C., Southfield, Michigan (per ECF No. 69; Brooks Kushman's PTAB power of attorney also identifies Lewry, LeRoy, Robert C. J. Tuttle, and John M. Halan).

---

Outcome context (for grounding)

• The 2021-1229 appeal was affirmed by nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment on June 8, 2022 — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2021-1229, 2022 WL 2062168 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2022) — leaving Apple's IPR2019-00916 win (all challenged ’533 claims unpatentable) intact.
• Related: Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2213 (appeal of IPR2020-00175, '299 patent) and No. 2023-1034, Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. (June 21, 2024, nonprecedential), where the court applied Axonics to find the Board abused its discretion in refusing to consider Apple's reply arguments — again with Apple represented by Sidley (Kushan/Broughan team).

Sourcing caveat: The 21-1229 roster above is drawn from the court's own judgment (ECF 69) and Apple's PTAB power of attorney; the specific appellate roles (lead vs. of counsel) are inferred from who argued and from the PTAB back-up-counsel designations rather than from a separate "counsel of record" line entry, since the Federal Circuit docket sheet itself (PACER) was not directly retrievable in this search and docket-aggregator entries list only the arguing attorney.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendant in this Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the related proceedings.

Let me confirm the Federal Circuit docket entries and check the district court and related '722 proceedings.

Bottom line

For the party identified in the case metadata as the defendant, Omni MedSci, Inc., the counsel of record on Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2021-1229 are the Brooks Kushman P.C. team led by Thomas A. Lewry. One important caveat on the caption first.

Caption/role caveat: The metadata styles the case "Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc." and lists Omni as defendant. On the actual Federal Circuit docket for No. 2021-1229, the case is captioned Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — Omni is the appellant (patent owner/appellee below, appealing the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2019-00916) and Apple is the appellee. The metadata caption instead matches Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 2023-1034 (Fed. Cir.), the appeal from the '484-patent IPR in which Apple was appellant and Omni appellee. I've therefore treated the question as "counsel for Omni MedSci, Inc." and note where roles differ between the two appeals.

---

Counsel of record for Omni MedSci, Inc. — Fed. Cir. No. 2021-1229

Per the court's Judgment, ECF No. 69 (June 8, 2022) (Rule 36 affirmance; per curiam Moore, C.J., Dyk, Chen, JJ.), which is the controlling record of appearance:

Judgment language: "THOMAS A. LEWRY, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN S. LEROY, CHRISTOPHER C. SMITH."

Additional Brooks Kushman attorneys designated as Omni's PTAB counsel of record in the related IPRs (and thus part of the same defense team, though not listed on the 2021-1229 judgment): Robert C.J. Tuttle (Reg. No. 27,962), John M. Halan (Reg. No. 35,534), and Andrew B. Turner (Reg. No. 63,121). Turner's firm bio states he "defended Omni (Patent Owner) in multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging patent claims related to wearable devices that monitor physiological parameters, three of which were denied institution."

No in-house counsel for Omni MedSci appears on the Federal Circuit docket (Omni is a small patent-holding company founded by Dr. Mohammed Islam).

Local / trial-court counsel

• E.D. Tex. (Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS): Brooks Kushman (Lewry as lead attorney, plus Alan J. Gocha, Christopher C. Smith, John M. Halan, John S. LeRoy, and Robert C.J. Tuttle), with Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX) — Thomas John Ward, Jr., Andrea Leigh Fair, and Claire Abernathy Henry — as local counsel.
• N.D. Cal. (Nos. 4:19-cv-05673-YGR, 4:19-cv-05924-YGR, 3:20-cv-00563-YGR): Omni's counsel in the transferred cases remained Brooks Kushman; the Federal Circuit filings do not list a separate N.D. Cal. local-counsel firm for Omni.

For completeness — the opposing side (Apple Inc.)

Although Apple is the plaintiff per the metadata (and the appellee in 2021-1229), its appellate counsel were: Jeffrey Paul Kushan (argued; Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC), with Thomas Anthony Broughan, III and Joshua John Fougere (Sidley, Washington, DC); Ching-Lee Fukuda (Sidley, New York, NY); and Michael Roberts (Sidley, Dallas, TX). Sidley's certificate of interest in the related appeal also names Gillam & Smith LLP (Melissa R. Smith, Bobby Lamb) as trial-court counsel.

---

Sourcing and limits on this answer

• I did not pull PACER directly; the appearance list above is grounded in the Federal Circuit judgment/opinion text (No. 2021-1229, ECF 69, June 8, 2022), the 2023-1034 opinion (June 21, 2024), PTAB mandatory notices/powers of attorney and hearing transcripts (IPR2019-00910, IPR2019-00916, IPR2020-00029, IPR2021-00453), and docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, CourtListener).
• The Federal Circuit briefs and judgment in these appeals were not sealed, so there is no missing-appearance problem to report.
• Patent-metadata discrepancy: the case metadata lists U.S. Pat. No. 9,995,722, but No. 2021-1229 arose from IPR2019-00916, which concerned the '533 patent — consistent with the existing case summary. I could not confirm that the '722 patent was asserted in this appeal. I did not verify the '722 patent's role, so treat that patent number as unconfirmed.
• I intentionally did not describe individual attorneys' bar admissions beyond the USPTO registration numbers shown in the filings, and I have avoided asserting firm titles (e.g., "president," "shareholder") that I could not confirm from a primary source.

Key citations: Fed. Cir. No. 2021-1229, Judgment, ECF 69 (June 8, 2022); Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 2023-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024); PTAB IPR2019-00916, Paper 9 (Notice of Change of Counsel, July 12, 2019); IPR2021-00453 Hearing Transcript (June 22, 2022); E.D. Tex. No. 2:18-cv-00134 docket sheet.