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

Omni MedSci, Inc., a non-practicing entity (NPE) linked to inventor Professor Mohammed N. Islam of the University of Michigan, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff asserts its intellectual property against several prominent consumer electronics and wearable technology companies: [Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) and its American subsidiary (a multinational electronics conglomerate known for smartphones and smartwatches), Fossil Group, Inc. and its related entities (an American fashion design and manufacturer of watches and smartwatches), OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (a Chinese manufacturer of smartphones and accessories), and Ōura Health Oy (a Finnish health technology company known for its Oura smart rings). The accused products and technologies are broadly described as wearable devices, including smartwatches and smart rings, as well as mobile phones and tablets, which allegedly measure physiological parameters and wirelessly transmit data. The litigation, originally filed asserting five patents, later expanded to include seven patents in total, with US Patent 12193790 being one of the asserted patents. Patent 12193790 generally relates to physiological parameter measurement using wearable devices.

The case is currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, a venue frequently chosen for patent disputes. It is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne also involved. A key procedural development is the defendants' motion for a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Defendant Ōura Health Oy has also filed motions to dismiss Omni MedSci's amended complaints.

This case is notable due to Omni MedSci's established pattern as an NPE, having previously engaged in patent litigation against other major technology companies like Apple and DexCom, with some prior art challenges at the PTAB resulting in claims being found unpatentable. The continued assertion of patents against multiple industry leaders in the booming wearable technology and mobile device markets highlights the potential for significant industry impact, particularly concerning health and fitness tracking functionalities. The defendants' strategy of pursuing IPRs and PGRs at the PTAB, even for the recently added 12193790 patent, indicates that patent validity challenges remain a central and aggressive defense tactic in this campaign.

This case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-01070), is currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The litigation involves Omni MedSci, Inc. asserting patent infringement against multiple defendants in the wearable technology and mobile device industries. Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-2025)

• Complaint Filed (2024-12-20): Omni MedSci, Inc. filed its original complaint against the defendants, asserting infringement of five patents.
• First Amended Complaint (2025-03-06): Omni MedSci filed its First Amended Complaint, additionally asserting infringement of patent 12193790.
• Second Amended Complaint (2025-05-19): Omni MedSci filed a Second Amended Complaint, further adding patent 12268475 to the asserted patents.
• Plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims & Infringement Contentions (2025-05-09): Omni MedSci disclosed its asserted claims and infringement contentions.
• Third Amended Complaint (2025-08-12): Omni MedSci filed its Third Amended Complaint, asserting a total of seven patents, with 34 claims across these patents.
• Defendants' Supplemental Invalidity and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions (2025-07-18): Defendants submitted their contentions regarding invalidity and subject matter eligibility.
• OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Appearance: As of August 2025, defendant OnePlus had not yet appeared in the case, and its answer was due on September 18, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motions to Dismiss filed by Ōura Health Oy (Terminated): Ōura Health Oy filed motions to dismiss, which were later terminated.
• Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending IPR/PGR (Filed 2025-08-27): Defendants, including Samsung, Fossil, and Ōura Health Oy, filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the institution and outcome of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the PTAB. The motion argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the IPRs and PGRs were filed at an early stage of the case, before significant discovery or claim construction had occurred.
• Motion to Stay in Parallel Case (Delaware District Court) (Granted Conditionally): In a related case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc. (1:25-cv-00140, D. Del.), a motion to stay pending IPR and PGR proceedings was conditionally granted. The Delaware court's decision noted that Samsung's IPRs on several patents, including the '790 patent, were instituted in February 2026 and Whoop's PGR on the '790 patent was instituted in April 2026.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Markman Hearing Scheduled (2026-02-13): A Markman hearing was scheduled for February 13, 2026. Later, it was set for February 19, 2026, at 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents

Multiple IPR and PGR petitions have been filed against the patents asserted by Omni MedSci, including patent 12193790.

• Samsung IPRs (Filed 2025-08-05): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed several IPR petitions against Omni MedSci, Inc., including IPR2025-01252 (Patent No. 11160455), IPR2025-01253 (Patent No. 12193790), IPR2025-01249 (Patent No. 9055868), IPR2025-01250 (Patent No. 9651533), and IPR2025-01251 (Patent No. 10874304).
  • IPR2025-01253 (Patent 12193790) - Institution Denied: The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01253 concerning patent 12193790.
  • PGR2025-00064 (Patent 12193790) - Discretionary Denial: A PGR petition filed by Samsung for patent 12193790 (PGR2025-00064) received a discretionary denial.
  • Samsung IPRs on other patents (Instituted Feb 2026): IPRs filed by Samsung on patents 9651533, 10874304, 11160455, and 12268475 were instituted in February 2026.
• WHOOP IPRs/PGRs (Filed 2025): WHOOP, Inc. also filed IPR and PGR petitions against several of the asserted patents, including IPR2025-01583, IPR2025-01584, and IPR2025-01585.
  • PGR2026-00003 (Patent 12193790) - Institution Granted: A PGR (PGR2026-00003) related to patent 12193790 was instituted on May 6, 2026.

5. Present Posture

• The case remains pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The motions to stay pending IPR outcomes suggest a deferral of significant litigation activity while the PTAB proceedings unfold.
• The denial of institution for some PTAB challenges to patent 12193790, and the institution of others (PGR2026-00003), indicate a mixed outcome for the defendants' invalidity challenges at the PTAB, which could influence the ongoing district court litigation.

Press coverage of Omni MedSci v. Samsung (2:24-cv-01070)

What the press has actually reported is thin. My searches across the case caption, the party names, the '790 patent number and the PTAB proceeding numbers turned up no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O or JD Supra story on this litigation. The only outlet carrying a dedicated case file is Law360, whose docket-tracker page for Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. et al. carries a May 19, 2026 entry headlined "Squires Ends Samsung-Requested IPR Over Related PGR," reporting that "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." The same item is syndicated on Law360's page for the parallel Delaware case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc.. Both pages are paywalled, so I can attribute only the headline and the teaser sentence, not the body of the article.

On the numbers and the merits, there is essentially nothing in the press. I found no reported damages demand, no settlement figure, no verdict, and no executive or analyst commentary quoted in any outlet about this case. That silence is consistent with the public record: the case is still pending, claim construction briefing has been exchanged (the P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was filed at Dkt. 112 on 2025-11-21, covering claims of the '868, '533, '484, '304, '790 and '475 patents), and the parties have been litigating the PTAB track rather than a trial. The only quasi-journalistic treatment I found is a data-driven write-up by Patsnap, which is an algorithmic litigation summary rather than reporting; it covers a related but separate E.D. Tex. suit, No. 2:25-cv-00483, filed 2025-05-05 and dismissed without prejudice on 2025-06-18, and lists the accused instrumentalities across defendants — Samsung Galaxy Watch/Galaxy Ring, Fossil Gen 1–6, Ōura Gen 1–4 rings, and OnePlus Watch, phone and tablet lines. I would not treat it as independent verification of anything beyond the docket it summarizes.

Two contradictions to flag. First, the previously generated "Key legal developments" section states that PTAB institution was denied in IPR2025-01253 (Samsung v. '790) — the USPTO Director's own order initiating sua sponte Director Review states the opposite: institution was granted on 2026-02-03 (Paper 19), then placed under Director Review and stayed after WHOOP's PGR2026-00003 was instituted (see the USPTO Director Review order). The prior section also dates the WHOOP PGR institution to 2026-05-06, whereas the Director's order records the institution notice as 2026-04-01 (Paper 10; Paper 14). Law360's May 19, 2026 item is consistent with the Director Review outcome, not with the "denial" framing. Second, the prior section reports that Ōura's motions to dismiss were simply "terminated"; the court's order overruling Omni's objections (Dkt. 159) to Magistrate Judge Payne's R&R (Dkt. 146) actually granted dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint as to Ōura for improper joinder and denied the motion otherwise, denying the earlier motion (Dkt. 68) as moot.

About the five supplied article links. All five predate the 2024-12-20 complaint by two to four years and therefore cannot report on this case; they appear to be an index artifact from Omni MedSci's earlier enforcement campaigns (the Apple/DexCom-era suits) or from general wearable-sensor coverage. I verified that the 2022-08-11 IPWatchdog roundup exists and is a weekly statistics-and-filings column (33 PTAB proceedings, 42 new district court patent filings that week) whose substantive items concerned Focus Global Solutions/Jeffrey Gross suits against Dell, HP, Cisco, SolarWinds and others, and the Taasera MDL — I found no Omni MedSci or Samsung wearable content in it. I could not retrieve text confirming any Omni MedSci discussion in the 2021-06-24, 2021-01-27 or 2020-04-29 IPWatchdog roundups at id=134950, id=129439 or id=121156, and the Patently Apple piece of 2021-01-25 is a rumor item about Samsung Galaxy Watch glucose-monitoring features, not litigation coverage. I cannot confirm those four discuss this case, and readers should treat the list as unverified rather than as coverage of 2:24-cv-01070.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co
• Complaint analysis | 2:26-cv-00470 | Omni MedSci Inc v. Fossil Group Inc | Ex Parte

• Exhibit No

• IPR2025-01250, No. 2041 Exhibit - Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Omni MedSci, Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 224 cv 01070 JRG RSP ED Tex Nov 21, 2025 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 20 - Exhibits:
• PGR2025-00064, No. 1090 Exhibit - Ex 1090 2025 03 06 Omnis First Amended Complaint (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2025) - Exhibits:
• From: Daniel Kim Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 10:02 AM To: omni@nixonpeabody
• PGR2025-00063, No. 2004 Exhibit - Omni MedSci’s Infringement Contentions Cover Document, Omni MedSci, Inc v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 224 cv 01070 JRG RSP (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2025) - Exhibits:
• Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute IPR proceedings and cancel the Challenged Claims
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Pursuant to (\S \S 321 - 329) and (\S 42.1,^{1}) Samsung Electronics Co

I'll research this now, starting with docket-level and firm-level sources.

Good leads. Let me pull the actual docket and confirm the full plaintiff-side roster.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Omni MedSci, Inc.

Bottom line: Omni MedSci is represented in this case by Nixon Peabody LLP as national/lead trial and PTAB counsel, with The Davis Firm, P.C. (Longview, TX) as local counsel. No in-house counsel has appeared — consistent with Omni MedSci being an inventor-owned licensing entity (Prof. Mohammed N. Islam). Notably, this is a change of counsel from Omni MedSci's earlier campaigns (the Apple/DexCom suits), which were handled by Brooks Kushman P.C. (John M. Halan, Thomas J. Ward, Jr.).

---

Nixon Peabody LLP — lead / national counsel

Sources: Patent Owner's Power of Attorney dated Aug. 25, 2025, filed in IPR2025-01250 (and parallel IPRs), naming Hayes as Lead Counsel with Stringfield, Maloney, Christopher, Holt, Georgiev, and Leggett as back-up; Samsung's Updated Mandatory Notices (IPR2025-01252, 9/24/2025) listing Hayes as Patent Owner's lead counsel; Dkt. 8–10 (Notices of Attorney Appearance, 1/13/2025) reported on the Justia docket for 2:24-cv-01070; Nixon Peabody firm bio for Hayes.

---

The Davis Firm, P.C. — local counsel (East Texas)

Sources: PacerMonitor party/counsel listings for Omni MedSci's related E.D. Tex. filings (2:26-cv-00356, 2:26-cv-00470, 2:26-cv-00472), which show "William E. Davis, III, Davis Firm, PC" and "Ty William Wilson, The Davis Firm, PC – Longview" appearing for Omni MedSci; CourtListener parties page for Omni MedSci v. Apple (7:26-cv-00226) listing both; davisfirm.com and Martindale bios.

---

Sourcing gaps and caveats — please read

1. No public access to the 2:24-cv-01070 docket itself. PACER is paywalled and the Justia docket extract I could retrieve was truncated ("last retrieved March 31, 2026"). I confirmed Dkt. 8, 9, and 10 (Stringfield, Maloney, Gjorgiev, all 1/13/2025) and that a "William Ellsworth Davis, III" entry appears on that docket, but I could not directly verify a Notice of Appearance by Jennifer Hayes in the district case, nor the precise docket entry for Davis/Wilson. Their roles are inferred from (a) her designation as Patent Owner's Lead Counsel in every parallel PTAB matter, (b) her participation in litigation-coordination emails with Samsung's counsel (e.g., IPR2025-01250, Ex. 2040), and (c) Davis Firm's confirmed appearance for Omni MedSci in the follow-on E.D. Tex. suits.
2. Counsel in the 2026 follow-on suits. Omni MedSci has filed new E.D. Tex. actions against the same defendants on additional patents (e.g., 2:26-cv-00356 v. Samsung; 2:26-cv-00289 v. Ōura; 2:26-cv-00470 v. Fossil; 2:26-cv-00472 v. OnePlus). Additional Nixon Peabody names surface in those dockets (e.g., Matthew A. Werber, Alec Royka, Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello), but PacerMonitor's "Represented By" lists merge both sides' counsel, so I have not attributed those individuals to the plaintiff without confirmation. Treat them as unverified.
3. Vendor/aggregator risk. Some docket-aggregator entries are OCR'd or AI-generated (e.g., the Ex Parte complaint analyses) and I did not rely on them for counsel identity.
4. Contradiction flag. The "Defendant representatives" section of this case summary lists Baker Botts, Sidley, Kirkland, Locke Lord, Mayer Brown, and Ropes & Gray personnel. Those are consistent with the PTAB and district filings I reviewed — but note that Samsung's PTAB counsel of record is Ropes & Gray (James L. Davis, Jr.) with Mayer Brown as back-up, which differs from the Baker Botts/Potter Minton district-court team in the summary. Similarly, Ōura's district-court team in the joint claim construction statement (Dkt. 112) is Mayer Brown (James A. Fussell III, Jasjit Vidwan, Amanda Stephenson, Angeline Premraj, Paul Choi) plus Potter Minton (Shaun Hassett) — not Locke Lord/Alston & Bird as the prior section states. I'd recommend correcting that section.

The following is a list of counsel of record representing the defendants in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. et al.:

For Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:

• Lead Counsel:

  • Douglas M. Kubehl (Partner)
    • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, TX (also Houston)
    • Relevant Experience: Specializes in complex patent litigation in the telecommunications sector; frequently represents Samsung.
  • Robert F. Maier (Partner)
    • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P., New York, NY
    • Relevant Experience: Handles all phases of patent litigation.
  • Christa Brown-Sanford (Partner)
    • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Specializes in electrical patent disputes.
  • Michael E. Jones (Partner)
    • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX and Marshall, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Emphasizes intellectual property litigation; has obtained defense jury verdicts for clients like Google and successfully represented Samsung in a patent defense victory.

• Local Counsel (for Samsung):

  • Michael E. Jones (Partner)
    • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX and Marshall, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Experienced in intellectual property litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as lead or local counsel for Fortune 500 companies.

• Korean Counsel (for Samsung):

  • Jason Kim (Attorney)
    • Firm: Lee & Ko, Seoul, South Korea
    • Relevant Experience: Focuses on patent & healthcare litigation, trade secret, unfair competition, and IP transactions & licensing for both domestic and international clients.

For Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., and Fossil Partners, L.P.:

• Lead Counsel:

  • Aimee P. Fagan (Partner)
    • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Co-leads Sidley's IP Litigation practice, focusing on patent litigation involving software, electronics, and emerging technologies; frequently entrusted with lead trial responsibility.
  • Ching-Lee Fukuda (Partner)
    • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY
    • Relevant Experience: Co-leader of Sidley Austin's global IP Litigation practice, with a strong track record in jury and bench trials in life sciences, medical device, and technology sectors.
  • Irene Yang (Partner)
    • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA and Palo Alto, CA
    • Relevant Experience: Co-head of the firm's IP group, offering substantial experience representing technology and life sciences companies in high-stakes patent trials.

• Local Counsel (for Fossil):

  • Melissa Smith (Partner)
    • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Key contact for Gillam & Smith, a Marshall-based litigation boutique with notable expertise in IP disputes, particularly patent litigation.

For OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.:

• Lead Counsel:

  • Gregg F. LoCascio (Partner)
    • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington D.C.
    • Relevant Experience: Seasoned litigator who regularly acts as lead counsel on high-stakes IP disputes; has worked on significant defense-side patent wins for clients like Samsung.
  • Adam Alper (Partner)
    • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Bay Area, CA
    • Relevant Experience: Focuses on competitor cases in the telecommunications, computer hardware, and pharmaceutical industries.
  • Michael De Vries (Partner)
    • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA
    • Relevant Experience: Consistently achieves victories in both plaintiff and defense-side patent litigation.

• Local Counsel (for OnePlus):

  • Johnny Ward (Of Counsel)
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Former U.S. District Judge, now focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, mediation, and arbitration; known for high-stakes intellectual property trials in the Eastern District of Texas.

For Ōura Health Oy:

• Lead Counsel:

  • Mark Hannemann (Partner)
    • Firm: Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY
    • Relevant Experience: Leads patent and trade secret litigation and arbitration teams for multinational companies, with first-chair experience in bench trials, jury trials, Patent Office proceedings, and ITC investigations.
  • Charles B. Baker (Partner)
    • Firm: Locke Lord LLP, Houston, TX and Austin, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Co-chairs Locke Lord's IP Litigation Practice Group.
  • Charles E. Phipps (Partner)
    • Firm: Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX
    • Relevant Experience: Co-chairs Locke Lord's IP Litigation Practice Group.

• Local Counsel (for Ōura Health Oy):

  • William E. Morris (Partner)
    • Firm: Morris, Tinsley & Kyzar, Marshall, TX (While specific details for this case weren't immediately available via general search, Morris, Tinsley & Kyzar is a well-known local counsel firm in EDTX for patent litigation.)
  • S. Ben Pleune (Partner)
    • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC
    • Relevant Experience: Focuses on post-grant challenges including IPR and PGR proceedings, often disrupting co-pending litigation from non-practicing entities.
  • Bryan Skelton (Partner)
    • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Raleigh, NC
    • Relevant Experience: Involved in patent prosecution, counseling, and review practice.

Please note that this information is based on publicly available data and may not be exhaustive. Some attorneys may have an "of counsel" or "in-house" role not explicitly identified in general search results.