Omni MedSci, Inc. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff Omni MedSci, Inc. is a Michigan-based patent-holding company whose portfolio was built by its founder, Dr. Mohammed N. Islam, a University of Michigan electrical-engineering professor and short-wave-infrared laser pioneer; its corporate parent is Omni Technology Holdings, Inc. (per Omni's Rule 7.1 disclosure in its 2026 E.D. Tex. filings). Korea's IP-NAVI dispute database classifies Omni as an NPE, and given that Omni's current activity is licensing and litigation rather than product sales in the accused field, "NPE/patent-monetization entity with operating-company origins" is a fair characterization — though the Federal Circuit has twice addressed Omni's title to these patents against challenges that the University of Michigan actually owned them, and upheld Omni's standing (Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1715 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), aff'g denial of Apple's motion to dismiss; Judge Newman dissenting). Defendant OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. is the Chinese handset maker behind the "flagship-killer" OnePlus Android phones, and an increasingly significant wearables vendor (OnePlus Watch, Watch 2, Watch 2R) selling into the U.S. through OnePlus USA, Amazon, Best Buy and carrier channels. Omni's lead counsel in the related matters is Nixon Peabody LLP (Jennifer Hayes, Daniel S. Stringfield, Timothy Maloney, Benjamin Holt, Angelo Christopher, Daniel Georgiev); OnePlus has been jointly represented in the parallel PTAB proceedings with Samsung, Fossil and Ōura by Sheppard Mullin, Mayer Brown, Fish & Richardson, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James and Ropes & Gray (per the USPTO's Director Review order in IPR2025-01253). I could not verify local counsel of record for OnePlus in this severed case from the docket.

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities are OnePlus's optical-wearable ecosystem: the OnePlus Watch / Watch 2 / Watch 2R smartwatches, the OnePlus Health companion app, OnePlus Cloud, and the Android phones/tablets that act as the "personal device" and display element — the OnePlus 6/6T through 11/11R, Ace Pro, Nord series (including Nord N30 5G), and OnePlus 13/13R (product lists appear in the operative complaint and in the parallel IPR petitions). The technical theory is photoplethysmography (PPG): LEDs emit near-infrared light into skin, lenses deliver it to tissue, spatially separated detectors with ADCs capture reflected light, and the system improves signal-to-noise ratio by differencing "light-on" and "light-off" (ambient) signals, synchronizing detection to the source, modulating the LEDs, and/or determining "worn" status — with results passed wirelessly to a phone and thence to the cloud. Case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 11,596,311 as the patent at issue in this severed case. One line on the '311: it is a member of Omni's Dec. 31, 2012 priority family (the "semiconductor-diode / improved-SNR wearable physiological measurement" chain that produced the '868, '533, '484, '304, '455, '790 and '475 patents), directed to LED-based optical measurement of physiological parameters with SNR-enhancing on/off signal comparison and wearer detection. Caveat: I could not independently confirm the '311's exact title or its asserted

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal press. Let me start with parallel searches.

Good — the case is real and appears to be a severed/consolidated matter. Let me dig into the docket, the lead case, and the PTAB side.

Bottom line

This is not a stand-alone complaint — 2:26-cv-00472 is a severed spin-off of the 2024 Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus case (2:24-cv-01070), re-docketed against OnePlus alone and then consolidated for all pretrial purposes into lead case 2:26-cv-00289. As of the last indexed docket activity (~2026-10-27), the case has three docket entries, no answer or counterclaims from OnePlus, no Markman, no trial, and no disposition. It is active and, per the consolidation order, "remains active for trial."

The strategically important action in this case is therefore not in the docket at all — it is in the PTAB, where the same petitioner group (including OnePlus) has challenged every asserted claim, and where the Director has taken the unusual step of sua sponte reviewing an institution decision on IPR-eligibility grounds.

---

Chronological developments

1. Pre-history and initial pleadings (parent case)

I'll research this systematically, starting with the docket and Omni MedSci's known litigation counsel.

Let me pull the docket-level counsel listing and verify which attorneys represent which side.

Now let me verify each attorney's firm affiliation and role, and try to pull the full docket counsel list.

Bottom line

Omni MedSci's side of this case is staffed by a two-firm team that has represented Omni in every one of its wearable-patent matters since 2024: Nixon Peabody LLP as lead/trial counsel and The Davis Firm, PC (Longview, Texas) as local counsel. The same team is simultaneously defending Omni against the Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus PTAB challenges (IPR2025-01249–01254, PGR2025-00063–00064) and handled Omni's Federal Circuit appeal in Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 25-1646. No in-house attorney appears on the docket.

Counsel of record — Omni MedSci, Inc. (plaintiff)

Corroborating structure

• The parties' meet-and-confer correspondence in the consolidated Texas case runs through two Omni-side service addresses — omni@nixonpeabody.com and OMNI-DF@davisfirm.com — confirming the lead-firm/local-firm split, with Omni_v_OnePlus@CJSJLAW.com (Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC) on the OnePlus defense side. See IPR2025-01250 Ex. 1098 (Nov. 7, 2025) and PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120 (Nov. 12, 2025), Docket Alarm.
• USPTO Director Review order in IPR2025-01253 lists "FOR PATENT OWNER: Jennifer Hayes, Daniel S. Stringfield, Timothy Maloney, Angelo J. Christopher, Benjamin R. Holt, Daniel Georgiev — NIXON PEABODY LLP."
• Omni's PTAB power of attorney in IPR2025-01250 also names Angelo J. Christopher (Reg. No. 81,594, Nixon Peabody Chicago) and Corey T. Leggett (Reg. No. 70,017, Nixon Peabody San Francisco) as back-up counsel. Neither appears on the 2:26-cv-00472 district-court roster I retrieved, so treat them as PTAB-only unless they later appear here.

Important caveats (please read before relying on this)

1. The severed case docket is essentially bare. As reported by CourtListener and PACER Monitor, 2:26-cv-00472 contains only three entries: (1) the Rule 42 severance order (Mag. J. Roy S. Payne, 6/12/2026), (2) the Third Amended Complaint (6/12/2026, 158 pp.), and (3) the consolidation order (6/17/2026) making 2:26-cv-00289 the lead pretrial case. No notices of appearance have been docketed in this severed case, and all future filings go to the lead case. Counsel identification therefore comes from the complaint's signature block/roster and from the related matters, not from appearances here.
2. Jennifer Hayes: She is unambiguously Omni's lead patent counsel organizationally (lead counsel on every PTAB power of attorney, e.g., IPR2025-01250), but the truncated docket-aggregator roster I could retrieve for this case did not display her name. I could not verify a district-court appearance for her on this docket. Do not state in a filing that she has appeared here without a PACER check of the lead case 2:26-cv-00289.
3. Nicholas Choi is on the aggregator's counsel roster but I could not verify his firm or role. He also appears on the Omni v. Fossil roster. Verify before citing.
4. Elizabeth Chiaviello's Nixon Peabody affiliation is inferred from her being copied on Nixon Peabody service correspondence for Omni; I did not retrieve her firm bio page.
5. The metadata's asserted patent for this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,596,311, but the complaint analysis at the docket level describes the '868, '533, '484 and '790 patents — consistent with this case being severed out of the omnibus Omni v. Samsung complaint and re-pleaded as a third amended complaint against OnePlus alone. Confirm which patent family is actually asserted here against the TAC itself (Dkt. 2 in 2:26-cv-00472).
6. No Law360 or Reuters item specific to 2:26-cv-00472 surfaced; my sources are PACER-derived aggregators (PACER Monitor, CourtListener/RECAP, Ex Parte), USPTO/PTAB papers, and firm biographies.

Sources: PACER Monitor docket page for 2:26-cv-00472 (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65167237); CourtListener docket 73479504; USPTO Director Review Order, IPR2025-01253; Omni MedSci Patent Owner Power of Attorney, IPR2025-01250 (Aug. 25, 2025); IPR2025-01250 Ex. 1098; PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120; Nixon Peabody bio for Peter Krusiewicz.

I'll search for docket and counsel information on this case.

Let me pull the docket details and identify which listed attorneys represent OnePlus specifically.

Key lead: OnePlus's service email is at CJSJLAW. Let me confirm its full counsel team and the new docket entries.

Bottom line

In Omni MedSci, Inc. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00472-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), OnePlus's defense team is drawn from Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC ("CJSJ") — a Texas firm with offices in Dallas and Waco — acting in what appears to be a combined lead-counsel/local-counsel role, with OnePlus in-house counsel in Shenzhen signing the operative case documents. There is no separate national "lead" firm visible in the record for OnePlus (unlike Samsung, which uses Ropes & Gray/Sheppard Mullin; Fossil, which uses Fish & Richardson; and Ōura, which uses Mayer Brown).

Important caveat on form of appearance: the 2:26-cv-00472 docket is essentially bare. As of the most recent pull, it contains only three entries — the severance order (Dkt. 1, 6/12/2026), the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 2, 6/12/2026), and the consolidation order (Dkt. 3, 6/18/2026, consolidating pretrial issues under lead case 2:26-cv-00289, with all future filings to be made in the lead case). No answer, Rule 12 motion, or notice of attorney appearance for OnePlus appears on the severed docket itself. The attorneys below are therefore identified from (a) the participant/appearance list carried on the 2:26-cv-00472 docket, and (b) OnePlus's own signed filings and service designations in the related E.D. Tex. and PTAB proceedings. Whether each has formally re-entered an appearance in the consolidated lead case 2:26-cv-00289 should be confirmed by pulling that docket.

Sources: PACER Monitor docket 2:26-cv-00472; CourtListener docket 73479504; Third Amended Complaint analysis, 2:26-cv-00472.

---

Counsel associated with OnePlus (CJSJ)

OnePlus in-house / client-side

---

How I confirmed the CJSJ–OnePlus link (and what remains unverified)

1. OnePlus-specific service address. In the related E.D. Tex. litigation, defense counsel designate a OnePlus-only service mailbox, Omni_v_OnePlus@CJSJLAW.com, distinct from plaintiff's addresses (Nixon Peabody omni@nixonpeabody.com, The Davis Firm OMNI-DF@davisfirm.com) and from Samsung's, Fossil's, and Ōura's mailboxes. See defense service-email exhibits filed in IPR2025-01250 (Ex. 1098) and PGR2025-00063 (Ex. 1120).
2. OnePlus's own Power of Attorney. IPR2025-01250, Paper 5 is captioned "Power of Attorney for Petitioner OnePlus Technology" and appoints Jack Shaw, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC.
3. Plaintiff side is separately accounted for. The Nixon Peabody team (Timothy Paul Maloney, Benjamin Robert Holt, Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello, Peter Krusiewicz, Daniel D. Georgiev, Daniel Steven Stringfield, Nicholas Choi) and The Davis Firm (William E. Davis III, Ty William Wilson) appear in the 2:26-cv-00472 participant list as Omni MedSci's counsel — the same Nixon Peabody/Davis Firm team that appeared for Omni in 2:24-cv-01070 (Dkt. 8–13) and 2:25-cv-00483. Do not mistake their presence on the participant list for defense appearances.

Unverified / open items:

• The PACER Monitor participant list does not itself map each name to a party; the OnePlus attribution above rests on the CJSJ service designation and POA, which is strong but not a docket-line admission.
• I could not locate any notice of appearance, corporate disclosure statement, or answer by OnePlus in 2:26-cv-00472 — consistent with consolidation into 2:26-cv-00289 and the absence of any substantive defense filing as of the last docket update. Filings (if any) will be docketed in the lead case.
• No separate "national" trial firm (e.g., a Ropes & Gray/Fish/Mayer Brown analogue) is documented for OnePlus in the district court; CJSJ appears to be carrying the defense itself. That is atypical but consistent with OnePlus's PTAB footprint.
• Related-party note for conflict-checking: OnePlus's PTAB petitions list Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. and Ouraring, Inc. as real parties-in-interest — relevant if OPPO-affiliated entities appear later.

Practical takeaways

• Serve/file against OnePlus via CJSJ, with Jack Shaw as the primary addressee and Omni_v_OnePlus@CJSJLAW.com as the operative service mailbox used by the defense group.
• CJSJ's team is patent-registered heavy (Shaw, Mangrum, Rafilson, Yang all hold Reg. Nos.), so expect substantive PTAB coordination (seven co-pending IPR/PGR petitions challenging the '868, '533, '304, '455, '475, '484 and '790 patents) rather than purely local-counsel staffing.
• Because the case is consolidated for pretrial under 2:26-cv-00289 with all future filings in the lead case, any counsel list must be refreshed from the 2:26-cv-00289 docket before being treated as final for this case number.