Ouraring, Inc. v. RingConn LLC

Ouraring, Inc. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against RingConn LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Ouraring, Inc., a Finnish health technology company, is known for its Oura Ring, a popular smart ring that tracks sleep, activity, and other health metrics, operating on a hardware-plus-membership model focused on preventative health. RingConn LLC, headquartered in Hong Kong, is also an operating company in the smart wellness sector, offering competing smart rings for health and activity tracking, notably promoting a one-time purchase model without subscription fees. The accused products are RingConn's smart rings, including models like the RingConn Gen 2 Air, which are alleged to infringe on Oura's patented technology, specifically concerning aspects of ring design and health-tracking functionality.

The primary patent at issue in this litigation, and related parallel proceedings, appears to be US Patent No. 11,868,178, despite the initial prompt listing 11188124. This patent, issued in January 2024 and subsequently acquired by Oura, broadly covers the concept of integrating a battery and circuit board within a ring form factor, and more specifically, a compact, curved battery and sensor array essential for thin smart ring designs. The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue highly favored for patent litigation, particularly by operating companies, due to its judicial sophistication, docket reliability, and well-established patent-specific legal precedent.

This case is notable as it is part of a broader "smart ring patent war" initiated by Ouraring, Inc. to protect its pioneering position in the rapidly expanding wearable technology market. Oura has been aggressively asserting its patent portfolio against several competitors, aiming to compel licensing agreements or secure import bans in the U.S.. In a related development, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) previously ruled in Oura's favor against both Ultrahuman and RingConn, finding patent infringement and leading to a U.S. import ban on their smart rings. The validity of patent 11,868,178 is currently being challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on grounds of obviousness, with reports indicating a review board has suggested it is "likely invalid," which could significantly impact the outcome of this and other related litigations. The assigned judge for this case is not publicly available in the provided search results.

Ouraring, Inc. v. RingConn LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, involving U.S. Patent Nos. 11,188,124 and 11,868,178, concluded with a voluntary dismissal following a comprehensive settlement between the parties.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Ouraring, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against RingConn LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on September 10, 2024. The lawsuit asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 11,188,124B2 and 11,868,178B2 against RingConn's Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 smart rings.
  • RingConn LLC did not file an answer or counterclaims in this district court case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • On October 7, 2024, RingConn LLC filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the final resolution of a parallel investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
  • The District Court granted RingConn's unopposed motion to stay on October 8, 2024.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The district court case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage before its dismissal.
  • However, in a related ITC investigation (No. 337-TA-1398) involving Ouraring and RingConn, a claim construction hearing was held on August 15, 2024, and an order on claim construction was issued on October 13, 2024, for patents including US11,868,178.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Due to the early stay and subsequent dismissal, the district court litigation did not proceed to significant discovery milestones.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions occurred in this case.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • On October 14, 2025, Ouraring, Inc. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims with prejudice. This action permanently bars Ouraring from reasserting the same claims against RingConn on these patents in any U.S. court.
  • The voluntary dismissal followed a comprehensive settlement and patent license agreement announced on October 21, 2025, between Ouraring and RingConn. This agreement resolved all outstanding patent disputes between the companies in the United States. Under the terms, Ouraring granted RingConn a multi-year license to continue offering its smart rings and companion app, with RingConn making royalty payments to Ouraring. The specific terms of the agreement are confidential.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A parallel ITC investigation, Certain Smart Wearable Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1398, was initiated on April 17, 2024, by Ouraring, Inc. and Ōura Health Oy against multiple respondents, including RingConn LLC. This ITC investigation alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,868,178, 10,842,429, and 11,868,179.
  • The ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Determination on April 18, 2025, finding all asserted claims of the '178 patent valid.
  • The ITC investigation against RingConn LLC was terminated on December 8, 2025, based on the settlement between the parties.
  • Additionally, RingConn LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR), IPR2025-00412, challenging the patentability of claims 1-10 and 12-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178. Ouraring argued against institution of the IPR, citing the parallel district court litigation (1:24-cv-01020) and the ITC investigation under Fintiv factors. The IPR petition noted that the Delaware district court litigation was stayed, which, according to the petitioner, weighed in favor of institution of the IPR. The outcome of IPR2025-00412 is not detailed in the provided sources beyond its filing and arguments for denial. There were no specific PTAB proceedings identified for U.S. Patent No. 11,188,124.

Ouraring, Inc. was represented by counsel from Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP in the patent infringement case against RingConn LLC. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on October 14, 2025.

The counsel of record for Ouraring, Inc. were:

• Karen L. Pascale

  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel due to firm's location and common practice in D. Del.)
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Practices in Intellectual Property Litigation and is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Robert M. Vrana

  • Role: Counsel (regularly serves as lead or Delaware counsel)
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Regularly serves as lead or Delaware counsel in patent and trademark cases in the District of Delaware, with experience in industries including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, software, networking, and blockchain technology.

In the patent infringement case Ouraring, Inc. v. RingConn LLC, case number 1:24-cv-01020, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, there is no counsel of record representing defendant RingConn LLC. The plaintiff, Ouraring, Inc., voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice on October 14, 2025, before RingConn LLC filed any answer or substantive defense pleadings. As such, RingConn LLC did not formally enter an appearance through counsel on the public docket.