Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to verify the parties, patents, and procedural posture.

Let me verify the patents, Omni MedSci's background, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me check whether US 9,995,722 is asserted anywhere, and get the current case status and PTAB outcomes.

Case Overview — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff Omni MedSci, Inc. is a Michigan corporation based in Ann Arbor whose principal is Dr. Mohammed N. Islam, a tenured professor of optics/photonics and biomedical engineering at the University of Michigan; Omni describes itself as part of an "Omni family of companies" that commercializes Dr. Islam's optical technology and also supplies optical products to the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community (Compl., Dkt. 1; Omni MedSci v. Apple, 2:18-cv-00134-RWS, Dkt. 1 ¶ 1). Because Omni monetizes an inventor-controlled patent portfolio rather than selling consumer devices, third-party commentary characterizes it as an inventor-controlled NPE — it is not a university or a passive shell, but it is not a market competitor of the defendants either. The original complaint named seven defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., plus Fossil Group/Stores/Partners, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen), and Finland-based Ōura Health Oy (Dkt. 1). The accused instrumentalities are consumer wearables and portables that perform photoplethysmography (PPG)-based optical physiological sensing — Galaxy smartphones and tablets, Galaxy Watch smartwatches, the Galaxy Ring, Fossil smartwatches, OnePlus phones/tablets/watches, and the Oura Ring — along with Samsung Cloud data processing. Omni's infringement contentions assert 34 claims across seven patents against "thousands of" accused products, and include joint-infringement theories that combine products from different defendants (Defs.' Mot. to Stay, Dkt. 85, at 4–5).

Patents asserted. All asserted patents share a December 31, 2012 priority date and name Dr. Islam as inventor: U.S. 9,055,868 — "System and Method for Voice Control of Medical Devices" (optical measurement device + remote control system with touchscreen/voice input and wireless host); U.S. 9,651,533 — wearable LED-based measurement device emitting near-infrared light (700–2500 nm) with signal-to-noise ratio improvement; U.S. 10,517,484 — semiconductor-diode physiological measurement device with improved SNR; U.S. 10,874,304 — semiconductor-source-based near-infrared measurement device with improved SNR; U.S. 11,160,455 — multi-wavelength wearable device for non-invasive blood measurements in tissue; and U.S. 12,193,790 and U.S. 12,268,475, 2025-issued continuations covering wearable differential pulse-rate/blood-flow measurement, added via amended pleading. The operative set is confirmed by the parties' P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 112, Nov. 21, 2025). ⚠️ Discrepancy flag: this case's metadata lists US 9,995,722, but I found no record of '722 being asserted here. '722 (SWIR super-continuum lasers for natural gas leak detection and remote sensing) is in the same 2012 family but a different technical branch, and appears in the record only as a continuation-chain relative of the '484/'304 patents (see Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, IPR2021-00453, Ex. list; PGR2025-00063 Ex. 2029). Per your metadata rule I have not overridden the listed patent, but the docket and PTAB records show the asserted set as the seven patents above.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed December 20, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling pretrial matters (jury trial demanded). Venue matters here because E.D. Tex./Marshall remains a high-volume, plaintiff-favorable patent docket, and venue is supported by Samsung's Plano, Texas facilities and Fossil's Richardson/Allen, Texas presence — i.e., a regular and established place of business under § 1400(b). Per the Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 65), Markman was set for February 13, 2026 and trial for August 17, 2026. Oura has been dismissed on improper-joinder grounds (Magistrate Judge Payne's R&R, Dkt. 146, adopted over Omni's objections, Dkt. 159; Oura's other grounds denied). The case is most notable for its near-total IPR/PGR linkage: on August 5, 2025, Samsung, Fossil, Oura, and OnePlus filed IPR2025-01249 through -01254 and PGR2025-00063/-00064 against every asserted patent, prompting Defendants' motion to stay (Dkt. 85, Aug. 27, 2025). The PTAB discretionarily denied institution on the '868 patent (IPR2025-01249, Paper 16, Dec. 1, 2025) but referred the '533, '304, '455, '790, and '475 petitions for merits review. Critically, Omni has already lost validity fights on this family: the Board held all challenged '533 claims unpatentable (IPR2019-00916, Paper 39, Oct. 14, 2020; summarily affirmed, Fed. Cir. No. 21-1229 (2022)), and held all '484 claims unpatentable after a Federal Circuit remand (Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 2023-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024); IPR2021-00453, Paper 26, Feb. 14, 2025), with Omni's appeal pending (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1646). The litigation is thus a follow-on assertion campaign — Omni previously sued Apple on the same family, and WHOOP is defending a parallel Delaware case (1:25-cv-140) where the court postponed its stay ruling pending PTO decisions, noting the "Samsung petitions." Separately, the family produced the precedential standing/ownership ruling in Omni MedSci v. Apple, 20-1715 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2021), holding that University of Michigan Bylaw 3.10 was a promise to assign, not a present automatic assignment — a key decision on university IP ownership. Market context: the case sits at the intersection of the booming optical health-sensing wearable market (Galaxy Ring, Apple Watch, Oura Ring, WHOOP) and the "multiple PTAB challenges" dynamic that now routinely precedes trial in E.D. Tex.

Sourcing / open items. Party names, accused products, patent list, and claim-construction posture are grounded in the complaint (Dkt. 1), the P.R. 4-3 statement (Dkt. 112), the stay motion (Dkt. 85), and PTAB filings (IPR2025-01249–01254; PGR2025-00063/-00064). Venue and judge from the Justia/PACER docket. Counsel of record appears to be The Davis Firm (led by William E. Davis III) with Nixon Peabody for Omni; Ropes & Gray and Sheppard Mullin for Samsung; Fish & Richardson for Fossil; Mayer Brown for Oura; and CJSJ Law for OnePlus (per the parties' service email, PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120) — I could not independently confirm every lead attorney. I did not verify a verdict, settlement, or the ultimate stay ruling on the docket, and I found no evidence that Unified Patents (or any other entity beyond the defendants and WHOOP) has petitioned against these patents; treat that as unverified.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

I'm gathering substantial data. Let me dig deeper into specific events.

Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Legal Developments & Posture

Case No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) | Presiding: Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Referred: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Important threshold note on the patent-at-issue metadata: The case metadata supplied to me lists US 9,995,722 as the asserted patent. Based on the pleadings, claim-construction filings, and the parallel PTAB petitions — all of which I could verify — the '722 patent does not appear anywhere in the 2:24-cv-01070 record. The patents actually asserted are US 9,055,868; 9,651,533; 10,517,484; 10,874,304; 11,160,455; 12,193,790; and 12,268,475 (all share a Dec. 31, 2012 priority family). Treat the '722 designation as unverified/erroneous for this docket.

---

I. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-12-20 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1; ~120 pages). Omni MedSci (a Michigan-based NPE/licensing entity; principal at 1718 Newport Creek Dr., Ann Arbor) sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), Fossil Group/Fossil Stores I/Fossil Partners, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., and Ōura Health Oy. The original complaint asserted five patents: the '868, '533, '484, '304, and '455 patents and demanded a jury. Accused instrumentalities spanned Samsung Galaxy Watch/Active/Watch3–7/Ultra, Galaxy Ring, Galaxy A/M/S/Z phones and Tab tablets, plus Samsung Cloud; comparable Fossil, OnePlus, and Ōura products. (Complaint reproduced as Ex. 2001 in IPR2025-01252/01253; Dkt. 1, filed 12/20/24.)
• 2025-01-19 — Summons returns of service (SEA served 2025-01-06; Dkts. 14–17).
• 2025-01-29 — Order granting Samsung's unopposed extension (Dkts. 18–19); Samsung's answer due 2025-03-28.
• 2025-02-13 — Fossil's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims against Omni MedSci (Dkt. 20), plus Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 21). Counsel appearances for Fossil followed (Dkts. 22–23, 2025-02-14). Fossil is represented by Fish & Richardson (Neil McNabnay, Jared A. Smith, Ricardo J. Bonilla).
• 2025-03-06 — First Amended Complaint (referenced in PGR2025-00064, Ex. 1090).
• Ōura Health's motions to dismiss: Ōura moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 68) and later the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 83), principally on improper joinder.

---

II. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Motion to Stay Pending IPR — Denied

• 2025-08-27 — Samsung, Fossil, and Ōura filed a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 85), filed immediately after Samsung's IPR/PGR barrage (see §VI below). The motion emphasized that claim construction had not yet begun, "Omni has not taken a single deposition," and that PTAB institution decisions were expected before the Markman hearing.
• 2025-08-29 — ORDER DENYING the motion as premature (Dkt. 86) (Magistrate Judge Payne). Applying this District's "universal practice" of denying stays before the Board acts, the court held: "the Board has not yet made institution decisions on several asserted patents… the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion as premature." (citing Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, 2015 WL 1069179 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015)).

Ōura's Motion to Dismiss — Granted in Part (Improper Joinder)

• Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 146) recommending a partial grant of Ōura's motion to dismiss. Omni filed Objections (Dkt. 159).
• Judge Gilstrap conducted a de novo review, OVERRULED Omni's objections, and ADOPTED the R&R. The court ordered Ōura's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 68) DENIED AS MOOT, and the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 83) GRANTED as to improper joinder; otherwise DENIED. (Gilstrap Order, 2:24-cv-01070, via govinfo.)

No summary-judgment ruling surfaced.

There is no evidence in the records I retrieved of a dispositive SJ motion or Daubert ruling having been decided; the case had not reached that stage as of the most recent data (~mid-2026).

---

III. Claim Construction (Markman)

This case is in the middle of claim construction, and the parties' disclosure timeline is well documented:

• 2025-10-31 — Omni's P.R. 4-2 Preliminary Claim Construction Disclosures (IPR2025-01249, Ex. 1073).
• 2025-11-11/12 — Defendants withdrew indefiniteness positions on "to use artificial intelligence to process" ('484 cl. 10) and "to use artificial intelligence in making decisions" ('475 cl. 5); remaining disputed terms include "beam," "modulate/modulating/modulation," "one or more filters," "to identify an object," and "personal device."
• 2025-11-21 — P.R. 4-3 JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT (Dkt. 112), covering six patents: the '868 (cl. 7–9), '533 (cl. 5, 11, 12), '484 (cl. 8), '304 (cl. 11, 14, 19–20), '790 (cl. 7), and '475 (cl. 13). Agreed constructions include:
  • "beam" = "photons or light transmitted to a particular location in space" ('868, '533, '304)
  • "personal device" = "a computer or microprocessor-based device having a wireless receiver, a wireless transmitter, a display, a microphone, a speaker, one or more buttons or knobs, a microprocessor, and a touch screen" ('533 cl. 5)
  • "to identify an object" = "to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing" ('484 cl. 8)
• Markman hearing scheduled for 2026-02-13 (per the Second Amended Docket Control Order, Dkt. 65). The parties' disclosed schedule under that DCO: P.R. 4-3 exchanges from Oct. 10, 2025; fact discovery close 2026-03-30; expert discovery close 2026-05-04; jury selection 2026-08-17; joint pretrial order due 2026-07-06.

⚠️ Note/uncertainty: One search result surfaced a June 2025 docket block (entries ~116–124, including a "Markman Hearing held 6/17/2025" and a "Fifth Amended Docket Control Order" of 6/23/2025). Those entries appear to belong to a different Samsung case (they were attached to a separate PTAB petition and reference an unrelated party, "Mullen Industries LLC"). I could not confirm a 2025 Markman hearing on this docket; the verified Markman date for 2:24-cv-01070 is 2026-02-13. Treat the June 2025 hearing as unverified for this case.

---

IV. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

• 2025-03-12 — Omni's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions served (Ex. 2004), identifying asserted claims and accused products across all defendants.
• 2025-06-03 — Samsung/Fossil/Ōura Invalidity and Subject-Matter-Eligibility Contentions (charting the '868, '533, '484, '304, '455, '790, and '475 patents). This filing explicitly references Omni's claimed priority date of September 3, 2002 (for the '868 patent) and December 31, 2012 (for the rest) — priority positions that became central to the PTAB fights.
• 2025-06-16 — Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 65) governs the operative schedule.
• 2025-07-18 — Defendants' Supplemental Invalidity and § 101 Ineligibility Contentions (the "ineligibility contentions for six of the Asserted Patents," served 2025-06-03, supplemented 2025-07-18).
• 2025-09-30 — OnePlus's invalidity contentions, a notable milestone because OnePlus had not yet appeared and service was being worked out (OnePlus waived service via a 2025-06-27 waiver; request sent 2025-06-20).
• The Aug. 27, 2025 stay motion flagged that Omni had taken no depositions as of that date — a milestone the defendants used to argue the case was still in its infancy.

---

V. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial — and a Related Dismissal

• No trial has occurred. Jury selection was calendared for 2026-08-17 (per Dkt. 65). No verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion is on the record.
• Separate, short-lived '475 suit: Omni MedSci v. Samsung, No. 2:25-cv-00483 (E.D. Tex.). Filed 2025-05-05, asserting US 12,268,475 against Samsung. Omni voluntarily moved to dismiss, and the court granted dismissal WITHOUT prejudice on 2025-06-18, each side bearing its own costs and all other relief denied as moot. This dismissal carries no estoppel or res judicata effect. (The '475 patent was later folded into the claim-construction lineup of the main '1070 case.)

---

VI. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

This is where the case's center of gravity lies. Omni's patents have an extensive PTAB history that the defendants weaponized.

A. Samsung's 2025 petition barrage (filed 2025-08-05)

Samsung (with Fossil and Ōura as co-petitioners, and OnePlus) filed six IPRs and two PGRs:

Samsung's stated strategy (per its "Ranking and Explanation of Parallel Petitions") was to file conditional IPR + PGR pairs on the '475 and '790 patents because those patents issued in 2025 and their AIA status (and thus IPR-vs-PGR eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(c)/321(c)) turned on Omni's own asserted Dec. 31, 2012 priority date. Samsung expressly asked the Board to institute the IPRs and moot the PGRs. Samsung's PTAB counsel includes Ropes & Gray (James L. Davis, Jr.), Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, Jasjit S. Vidwan), and Sheppard Mullin; Omni's PTAB counsel is Nixon Peabody.

The petitions lean heavily on collateral estoppel / issue preclusion and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3), arguing Omni is asserting continuation claims "not patentably distinct" from parent claims the Board and Federal Circuit already invalidated.

B. Prior Apple IPRs (the estoppel predicate)

• IPR2019-00916 ('533): Board found claims unpatentable; *Federal Circuit summary affirmance, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1229, 2022 WL 2062168 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2022).*
• IPR2021-00453 ('484): First Final Written Decision 2022-08-03; Fed. Cir. decision, No. 23-1034, 2024 WL 3084509 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024); a second Final Written Decision issued 2025-02-14, with Omni's appeal (as to claims 3–6 and 8–14 of the '484) pending as Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) (Omni's corrected opening brief filed 2025-09-11). Samsung's petitions repeatedly emphasize that all challenged claims of the '533 and '484 patents were cancelled and that Omni "continues to assert the '304 Patent (and even the parent patents)" despite adverse judgments.

C. Institution and Director Review (2026)

• 2026-02-03 — The Board GRANTED institution on at least the '790 IPR (IPR2025-01253, Paper 19), and denied institution of the parallel PGR2025-00064.
• 2026-02-12 — Board Scheduling Order entered in IPR2025-01253.
• WHOOP's competing petition: WHOOP filed PGR2026-00003 on 2025-10-13, arguing the '790 is PGR-eligible (thus IPR-ineligible under § 311(c)(1)); the Director granted institution on 2026-04-01.
• Director Sua Sponte Review: Because of the WHOOP institution, the Director (Under Secretary John A. Squires) initiated sua sponte Director Review of the IPR2025-01253 institution decision and STAYED that IPR pending the review ("an efficient use of Office resources to address IPR eligibility"). Law360 characterized the outcome as "Squires Ends Samsung-Requested IPR Over Related PGR." This removes Samsung's '790 IPR as an active track while the Director resolves the IPR-vs-PGR eligibility question.
• Parallel district litigation involving the same patents includes Omni MedSci v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.), and WHOOP filed its own IPR (IPR2025-01251-related data shows WHOOP's '304 petition) attacking the '304.

---

VII. Final Disposition / Present Posture (as of 2026-10-01)

• The '1070 case remains ACTIVE and has not reached trial, though it is deep into claim construction with a 2026-02-13 Markman hearing and a 2026-08-17 trial setting.
• The defendants' stay motion was denied (2025-08-29) as premature; no renewed stay ruling is confirmed on the record I retrieved, though the February 2026 institution decisions and the Director-review stay of the '790 IPR would be the natural basis for a renewed stay request.
• Ōura obtained partial dismissal (improper joinder) via the adopted Report & Recommendation, and the operative pleading is Omni's Third Amended Complaint.
• A new, related suit was filed: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex., filed ~2026-05-01) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. — signaling that Omni's enforcement campaign against Samsung continues on a fresh complaint (same plaintiff's counsel, Davis Firm PC / William E. Davis III).

---

VIII. Counsel of Record

---

Caveats on Sourcing

1. The US 9,995,722 designation in the case metadata is not corroborated by any district-court or PTAB filing I reviewed for 2:24-cv-01070; the asserted family is '868/'533/'484/'304/'455/'790/'475.
2. Specific docket-entry dates for the Ōura R&R adoption order, the First/Second/Third Amended Complaint sequence, and the Fifth Amended Docket Control Order could not be pinned to exact YYYY-MM-DD values from the sources retrieved; I have flagged the June 2025 Markman/Fifth-DCO entries as likely belonging to a different case.
3. The 2026 dates (institutions, Director review, the 2:26-cv-00356 filing) come from PTAB/USPTO documents and third-party docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, Dockets.Justia, PacerMonitor, PatSnap) rather than direct PACER pulls; verify docket-entry numbers against PACER before relying on them in a filing.

I'll start by verifying the five known articles and searching for broader coverage of this case.

Let me verify the specific known articles and look for Law360/Reuters coverage.

Press coverage of Omni MedSci v. Samsung, No. 2:24-cv-01070

The headline finding is that there is very little press coverage of this docket specifically. All five articles in the supplied news index predate the complaint. The case was filed December 20, 2024, but the listed pieces are dated 2020-04-29, 2021-01-25, 2021-01-27, 2021-06-24, and 2022-08-11 — between two and four years before Omni sued Samsung in Marshall. None of them can therefore be reporting on this litigation; at most they touch the same patent family, the same plaintiff, or Samsung's optical-sensor products in other contexts. I could verify that the IPWatchdog 2021-06-24 roundup exists at the given URL and that it is a weekly docket table (the retrievable portion shows unrelated entries such as an XR Communications/Vivato suit against Samsung), but I could not confirm from the retrieved text that it discusses Omni MedSci at all, and I was not able to load the 2020-04-29, 2021-01-27, 2022-08-11, or Patently Apple pieces to verify their contents. Treat those four as listed-but-unverified. Given their dates, the plausible reading is that the 2021 items concern Dr. Mohammed Islam's earlier Apple campaign or Samsung's Galaxy Watch glucose-sensing rumors, not the 2024 suit — and the Patently Apple headline (Samsung Galaxy Watch and non-invasive glucose monitoring) is consistent with that narrower product-rumor framing rather than litigation reporting.

The one piece of on-point press I could confirm is Law360. Law360 maintains dedicated docket pages for both the district case — Law360 — and the Samsung PTAB proceeding, Law360, where it carries an article headlined "Squires Ends Samsung-Requested IPR Over Related PGR" (displayed on the case page as dated May 19, 2026). Per Law360's summary, "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board will no longer conduct an inter partes review into the validity of an Omni MedSci wearable device patent, now that there will be a separate post-grant review." That is consistent with — and slightly sharpens — the account in the earlier sections of this report: the Director's sua sponte review did not merely pause Samsung's '790 IPR, it terminated it, leaving WHOOP's PGR as the operative track. Law360 frames the development as a PTAB resource-allocation/IPR-versus-PGR eligibility story, not as a wearable-market or damages story. I could not retrieve the article body (Law360 is paywalled), so the only quoted language I can stand behind is the publicly displayed headline and dek.

Reported numbers: essentially none. I found no reporting of a damages demand, royalty rate, settlement figure, or market-impact estimate tied to this case. The confirmation that this is so — rather than merely unfound — comes from the record itself: as noted in the earlier sections, no trial has occurred (jury selection was set for 2026-08-17), there is no verdict or fee motion, and the only resolved monetary-adjacent event is the voluntary dismissal of the short-lived '475 suit (No. 2:25-cv-00483) without prejudice. Trade-press/analytics coverage that does exist is docket-derived rather than editorial: Patsnap runs an auto-generated case page for the '483 suit listing the accused Galaxy Watch/Active/3–7/Ultra, Galaxy Ring, Fossil Gen 1–6, Ōura Ring Gen 1–4, and OnePlus devices and its 44-day dismissal, and RPX Empower tracks the '483 docket. Both are litigation databases, not reporting, and neither adds analysis.

Where coverage goes beyond the record, and where it's thin. Unusually for a seven-patent wearable-sensor case against Samsung in Judge Gilstrap's court, I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, or Patently-O treatment, and no industry-analyst or executive commentary on the case at all — the only editorial voice is Law360, and it is focused on the PTAB procedure rather than the commercial stakes. The nearest thing to commentary beyond the docket is the non-U.S. dispute database entry at IP-NAVI, a Korean government portal that logs case 2:24-cv-01070 with a filing date of 2024.12.20, lists Omni MedSci as a U.S. NPE, lists Samsung as "OO Electronics Co LTD" (anonymized by the database, not by any court), and records the five originally asserted patents ('868, '533, '484, '304, '455) with status "in progress" — a data record, not press analysis, but it independently corroborates the filing date and the initial patent set. Net: the litigation has been covered as a PTAB/patent-office story only, and almost entirely after the fact; the district-court case, the accused products, and the money at stake have gone essentially unreported in the mainstream and trade press. Any characterization of the case's commercial significance in this report should be sourced to the pleadings and market context, not to press.

Caveat: my verification was cut short by search-step limits before I could load the four IPWatchdog/Patently Apple URLs directly. Before citing them in a filing, open each and confirm whether it mentions Omni MedSci v. Samsung at all — on their face, the dates make it unlikely.

Sources

• Exhibit No

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. OMNI MEDSCI, INC., IPR2025-01252 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket
• Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute IPR proceedings and cancel the Challenged Claims
• IPR2025-01252, No. 2001 Exhibit - Complaint, Omni MedSci, Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 224 cv 01070 JRG RSP (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2025) - IPR2025-01252, No
• Omni MedSci v. Samsung Electronics | Patent Lawsuit 2:25-cv-00483 - Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. LTD.
• SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. Inter Partes Review
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas
• OMNI MEDSCI, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD. et al
• Complaint analysis | 2:25-cv-00483 | Omni MedSci Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record for this case, starting with the docket and firm-side sources.

Now let me pin down the specific plaintiff-side appearances and firm affiliations.

Let me verify the individual plaintiff-side attorneys and their firm affiliations.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line. Plaintiff Omni MedSci is represented by a two-firm team: Nixon Peabody LLP as lead/patent trial counsel and The Davis Firm, PC (Longview, Texas) as local/E.D. Tex. counsel of record. This confirms the firm-level attribution in the prior section, but the roles are best understood as Nixon Peabody = lead and Davis Firm = local — the reverse of how the prior summary phrased it ("The Davis Firm … with Nixon Peabody"). I found no in-house counsel of record for Omni (consistent with Omni being Dr. Islam's inventor-controlled company).

Attorneys appearing for Plaintiff Omni MedSci

Additional plaintiff-side names appearing in the record but not confirmed as formal appearances here

• Angelo Christopher (achristopher@nixonpeabody.com) and Corey Leggett (cleggett@nixonpeabody.com) — both Nixon Peabody; they appear on Omni's side of the IPR/PGR email correspondence (e.g., PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120; IPR2025-01250 Ex. 2040), but I did not locate district-court appearance notices for them on this docket. Treat their district-court status as unconfirmed.
• Omni's generic service mailbox in the Texas case is omni@nixonpeabody.com, reinforcing Nixon Peabody as the lead relationship firm.

Important caution — three different "Davis" attorneys appear in this record

Do not conflate them:

1. William E. Davis, III — The Davis Firm, plaintiff (Omni), local counsel.
2. James Davis (JDavis@sheppardmullin.com) — Sheppard Mullin, counsel for Samsung (appears in the same IPR email threads only because both sides are copied).
3. James L. Davis, Jr. (Ropes & Gray) — Samsung's lead PTAB counsel.

Experience notes (verified where possible)

• Jennifer Hayes (Nixon Peabody) is the most consequential plaintiff-side figure: patent litigator and PTAB specialist whose third-party rankings place her in the top tier of PTAB practitioners (LexDana lists her as partner / co-lead of Nixon Peabody's post-grant proceedings team, Reg. No. 50,845, and as counsel in Samsung Electronics v. Omni MedSci, WHOOP v. Omni MedSci, and KAIFI v. Google/Apple PTAB matters). She is the signatory driving Omni's preliminary responses and discretionary-denial oppositions in IPR2025-01249–01254 / PGR2025-00063–00064.
• William E. Davis, III is a frequent E.D. Tex. patent-plaintiff filing attorney; he is the named filer for Omni in the related E.D. Tex. suits against Fossil (2:26-cv-00470), OnePlus (2:26-cv-00472), and Samsung (2:25-cv-00483), and in Omni MedSci v. Apple, 7:26-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.).
• The other Nixon Peabody attorneys' individual bios were not individually verified in this pass; their affiliation and case involvement are confirmed by docket appearance notices and the parties' IPR service lists, not by firm-website profiles.

Sourcing, gaps, and one cross-reference flag

• Sources: Justia docket for 2:24-cv-01070 (retrieved Mar. 31, 2026) listing Dkts. 8–13 and 14–17; Dkt. 112 (P.R. 4-3 statement) as reproduced in IPR2025-01250 Ex. 2041; Omni's PTAB Power of Attorney in IPR2025-01250; PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120 and IPR2025-01250 Ex. 2040/3101 (service email chains); PacerMonitor/CourtListener party listings for the related Omni cases.
• Gaps. I could not retrieve the full PACER docket sheet or the bar-admission/pro hac vice orders for the Nixon Peabody lawyers in this case, so I cannot state with certainty who is designated "lead" versus "local" under this Court's LR CV-4/AT-2 designation, nor each out-of-state attorney's pro hac vice status. Hayes's "lead" status is documented on the PTAB side; her Texas district-court appearance is inferred, not directly confirmed. Nothing here appears sealed.
• Cross-reference flag. The prior section states Oura Health Oy was dismissed on improper joinder (R&R Dkt. 146, adopted at Dkt. 159). That is consistent only if those rulings came after Nov. 21, 2025, because the P.R. 4-3 statement of that date still lists Oura as a defendant and is signed by Oura's Mayer Brown counsel (James A. Fussell III, Jasjit Vidwan, Robert Pluta, et al.) with Potter Minton as Oura's local counsel. If Dkts. 146/159 predate Nov. 21, 2025, the docket numbering or the earlier summary is off — worth re-verifying before relying on the dismissal date.
• Metadata note. Per your rule I have not overridden the listed patent US 9,995,722; I again found no indication it is asserted in this case, and it does not appear in the P.R. 4-3 asserted-claim list, which covers the '868, '533, '484, '304, '790, and '475 patents.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants across the docket, firm announcements, and related filings.

Good leads. Let me pull the docket attorney list and confirm each defendant's district-court counsel.

Key finding: Samsung's PTAB counsel designation changed mid-case. Let me verify the firm move and pin down the district-court lineup.

Counsel of Record — Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP

Method / caveat up front. I could not load a PACER attorney-of-record list or the full docket sheet for this case (Justia's docket page shows the case but not the attorney roster; the last docket capture I could see was March 31, 2026). Everything below is reconstructed from filed documents and exhibits that reproduce district-court signature blocks and counsel correspondence — principally the P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 112, Nov. 21, 2025), reproduced as PTAB Exhibit 2041 in IPR2025-01250, the PTAB Updated Mandatory Notices (Sept. 24, 2025), and the parties' service/meet-and-confer email exhibits (Exs. 1098, 1117, 1120, 2040). Those are reliable for who is actually working the case. I flag below where a name or role could not be fully verified. I found no in-house counsel of record; all appearances are outside counsel.

---

1. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP is the firm appearing for Samsung in the district court as of the P.R. 4-3 statement and the 2025 correspondence.

Samsung service alias: CT-SamsungOmniMedsci@sheppardmullin.com.

⚠️ Firm-transition flag (important). Samsung's Aug. 5, 2025 IPR/PGR petitions name Ropes & Gray LLP counsel — James L. Davis, Jr. (Palo Alto), Hyun-Joong Kim (New York), and Frances Zhang (DC), with Boston as the PTAB correspondence address. On Sept. 24, 2025, Samsung filed Updated Mandatory Notices stating that "all previous counsel designations … are withdrawn by operation of this update" and re-listing the same three attorneys under the same registration numbers (57,325 / 79,936 / 73,589) — now at Sheppard Mullin (Menlo Park, New York, DC). The USPTO's sua sponte Director Review order in IPR2025-01253 likewise lists "James L. Davis, Jr., Hyun-Joong Kim, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP." The clean inference is that the Samsung team moved from Ropes & Gray to Sheppard Mullin in mid-2025; a residual RopesSamsungOmniMedSci1070@ropesgray.com service alias was still circulating in September 2025, and one later Samsung filing footer still showed "Fan Zhang — Ropes & Gray." Treat "Ropes & Gray and/or Sheppard Mullin" as the accurate formulation for Samsung until a current docket sheet is checked. (This is consistent with, and refines, the prior section's "Ropes & Gray and Sheppard Mullin for Samsung.")

Note: I did not identify a separate E.D. Tex. local-counsel firm for Samsung. The Dkt. 112 Samsung block appears to be Sheppard Mullin only, though E.D. Tex. practice frequently pairs an out-of-district team with local counsel — unverified here.

---

2. Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., and Fossil Partners, L.P.

Fish & Richardson P.C. — service alias FossilOmniFishService@fr.com.

---

3. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC (a/k/a "CJSJ Law"), a Texas firm with Waco, Dallas and Henderson offices — service alias Omni_v_OnePlus@CJSJLAW.com.

Procedural note worth carrying forward: as of the Aug. 27, 2025 stay motion, OnePlus "has not yet appeared in this case," had waived service of summons (Dkt. 70, June 27, 2025), and the case schedule did not apply to it; it nonetheless joined the IPRs/PGRs and served its own invalidity contentions on Sept. 30, 2025 (cited as Ex. 2003 in IPR2025-01250). So OnePlus's CJSJ appearance post-dates the original complaint by months. ⚠️ Possible dual role: I could not fully resolve whether CJSJ additionally serves as local counsel for Fossil in the district court; the Dkt. 112 excerpt places the CJSJ block adjacent to the OnePlus caption line, which indicates CJSJ signs for OnePlus, but I cannot rule out a second representation.

---

4. Ōura Health Oy — dismissed; historical only

Oura was dismissed for improper joinder (Magistrate Judge Payne's R&R, Dkt. 146, adopted over Omni's objections, Dkt. 159; Oura's other grounds denied). Its counsel of record while it was in the case:

Oura service alias: Oura-Omni@mayerbrown.com. This confirms and adds detail to the prior section's "Mayer Brown for Oura" (which was sourced to PGR2025-00063 Ex. 1120) — including the previously unlisted Tyler local-counsel firm.

---

5. Practical summary of the defense-side lineup

---

6. Corrections / refinements to earlier sections

1. Refinement, not contradiction: the prior section's "Ropes & Gray and Sheppard Mullin for Samsung" is right but understated — the record shows the same attorneys (matching PTAB registration numbers) re-designated from Ropes & Gray to Sheppard Mullin effective Sept. 24, 2025, so for current purposes sheppardmullin.com is the operative domain. Flagging because it matters for service, conflict checks, and who files next.
2. Refinement: Oura's counsel is Mayer Brown plus Potter Minton (Tyler), not Mayer Brown alone.
3. Refinement: Fossil's and OnePlus's trial teams are now nameable (Fish & Richardson's Jared Smith/Bonilla/Patel/Talebi; CJSJ's Shaw et al.).
4. Unresolved: a "Petitioners' Motion to Withdraw Counsel" (Paper 23, Apr. 22, 2026) appears on the IPR2025-01253 docket. I could not retrieve it, so I cannot say whose appearance was withdrawn or whether it affects district-court counsel. Given the mid-case firm transition described above, this is worth checking directly.
5. Timing caveat: because my docket visibility stops around March 31, 2026 and today is Oct. 1, 2026, later substitutions or additional local-counsel appearances may not be captured. Pull the live docket sheet (attorney list) and any notices of appearance/substitution after that date before relying on this as a current service list.

Not verified / do not treat as fact: the full name behind the Samsung rbrunner@sheppardmullin.com signature; whether Ropes & Gray retains any residual role; any Samsung local-counsel firm; the identity of counsel subject to the April 2026 withdrawal motion; and any in-house counsel involvement.