SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01252) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involves SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. as the Petitioner challenging U.S. Patent 11,160,455, owned by OMNI MEDSCI, INC. Samsung is a global operating company and conglomerate, widely recognized for its consumer electronics, IT, mobile communications, and semiconductor products, including smartphones and wearable devices. Omni MedSci, Inc. is a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) founded by Mohammed N. Islam, a tenured Professor of Optics and Photonics at the University of Michigan, with a history of asserting his optical technology patents in various fields, particularly medical device applications. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 11,160,455, broadly relates to systems and methods for measuring physiological parameters using wearable devices that transmit associated data wirelessly to smartphones or tablets.

This IPR stems from an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, OMNI MEDSCI, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD. et al (Case No. 2:24-cv-01070), filed in the Eastern District of Texas on December 20, 2024. In that district court litigation, Omni MedSci has accused various wearable devices from Samsung, Fossil, OnePlus, and Oura of infringement, specifically those configured to measure physiological parameters and transmit data to associated smart devices. The IPR was filed on August 4, 2025, and has since been instituted by the PTAB, indicating that the Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail in challenging at least one claim of Patent 11,160,455. The PTAB serves as an administrative forum for challenging patent validity based on prior art, and its institution decisions are now subject to direct review by the USPTO Director, considering both the merits and discretionary factors like parallel litigation.

The case is notable due to Omni MedSci's pattern of patent assertion, often characterized as NPE litigation, against major technology companies in the competitive wearable health technology market. Omni MedSci has previously asserted similar patents against Apple, raising questions about inventor standing due to university employment agreements that were addressed by the Federal Circuit. The ongoing IPR proceedings, including this one and several others filed by Samsung and WHOOP against Omni MedSci's portfolio, highlight a concerted effort by accused infringers to challenge the validity of these patents, underscoring the significance of the technology within the smart wearable device industry.

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. Therefore, the key legal developments will focus on the IPR process rather than litigation milestones like complaints, answers, Markman hearings, or trials.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments for IPR2025-01252:

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-08-04): SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01252, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455. The petition was filed on August 4, 2025.
• Institution Decision (Date not specified but prior to current date): The PTAB instituted the IPR, meaning it found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455 is unpatentable. The case status is "Pending - Instituted." Further details regarding the specific claims instituted and the grounds for institution would be in the institution decision, which would be publicly available on the PTAB's End-to-End system.
• Current Posture: The IPR is currently pending after institution. This means the parties are likely in the discovery phase, engaging in depositions, and preparing for the patent owner's response and the petitioner's reply, leading towards a final written decision.

There is no information readily available through web searches about any parallel district court patent infringement litigation where OMNI MEDSCI, INC. has asserted patent 11160455 against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. If such litigation exists, the IPR proceeding could potentially lead to a stay of the district court case.

To provide further details, specific docket entries from the PTAB's End-to-End system for IPR2025-01252 would be required to identify the exact date of the institution decision and the subsequent procedural schedule.This analysis will provide the key legal developments and outcome for the IPR proceeding IPR2025-01252, and also detail any related district court patent infringement litigation involving the asserted patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Parallel District Court Litigation

OMNI MEDSCI, INC. has initiated patent infringement litigation against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and other defendants, including Fossil, OnePlus, and Oura Health, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

• Complaint Filed (2024-12-20): Omni MedSci, Inc. filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:24-cv-01070, alleging infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.
• Second Amended Complaint & Motions to Dismiss (Dates vary, up to present): The litigation is ongoing, with defendants filing answers and counterclaims. For instance, Fossil Group, Inc. filed an answer and counterclaim. There have also been motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
• Another District Court Case (2025-05-05): Omni MedSci, Inc. also filed a separate suit against Samsung Electronics, Co. LTD. et al. in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:2025cv00483, on May 5, 2025. This case was dismissed without prejudice on June 17, 2025.
• Another District Court Case (2026-05-02): A new patent infringement case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. LTD. et al. (2:26-cv-00356), was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on May 2, 2026, alleging patent infringement.

PTAB IPR Proceedings

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-08-04): SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. filed the petition for IPR2025-01252, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.
• Institution Decision (2026-02-02): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision on February 2, 2026, instituting a trial for IPR2025-01252, indicating that the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455 is unpatentable. The status of the IPR is "Trial Instituted."
• Protective Order: A proposed default protective order has been filed in this and related IPRs (IPR2025-01250, -1251, -1252, -1253, -1254) to govern the treatment of confidential information.
• Current Posture: The IPR is currently active and in the trial phase following institution. A final written decision in an IPR typically concludes within 12 to 18 months from the petition's filing. Given the filing date of August 4, 2025, a final written decision would generally be expected between August 2026 and February 2027.The user asked for the key legal developments and outcome for a patent infringement litigation, but provided an IPR case number. I have clarified that the primary focus is an IPR and have also searched for any parallel district court litigation involving the same patent and parties. My previous response included this clarification and a preliminary timeline. Now I will use the new search results to provide a more detailed and accurate chronological list of developments for both the IPR and any related litigation, as requested.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This analysis covers both the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-01252 and related district court patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.

Parallel District Court Litigation

OMNI MEDSCI, INC. has initiated multiple patent infringement lawsuits against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and other entities.

• Complaint Filed (2024-12-20): Omni MedSci, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Oura Health Oy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:24-cv-01070. The complaint alleges infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.
• Answers and Counterclaims (Ongoing): Defendants have filed answers and counterclaims. For instance, Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., and Fossil Partners, L.P. filed their answer and counterclaims against Omni MedSci, Inc.
• Motions to Dismiss (Ongoing): Various motions, including motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, have been filed by defendants such as Oura Health Oy.
• Another District Court Case (2025-05-05): Omni MedSci, Inc. filed a separate patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics, Co. LTD. et al., case number 2:2025cv00483, in the Eastern District of Texas. This case was dismissed without prejudice on June 17, 2025, following a motion to dismiss by Omni MedSci, Inc.
• New District Court Case (2026-05-02): A new patent infringement case, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. LTD. et al., case number 2:26-cv-00356, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

PTAB IPR Proceedings

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., along with other petitioners, filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-08-04): SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., FOSSIL GROUP, INC., FOSSIL STORES I, INC., FOSSIL PARTNERS, L.P., OURA HEALTH OY, AND ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. filed the petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01252, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455.
• Institution Decision (2026-02-02): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an institution decision on February 2, 2026, granting trial in IPR2025-01252. This means the Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455 is unpatentable. The status of the IPR is "Trial Instituted."
• Protective Order: A default protective order has been established for IPR2025-01252, as well as several other related IPRs (IPR2025-01250, -1251, -1253, -1254), to govern the handling of confidential information during the proceedings.
• Current Posture: IPR2025-01252 is currently pending in the trial phase following institution. A final written decision in an IPR is typically issued within 12 to 18 months of the petition filing date. Given the petition was filed on August 4, 2025, a final written decision is expected between August 2026 and February 2027. There is no publicly available information about a final written decision for IPR2025-01252 as of today's date.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is represented by attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP, as well as by its in-house legal team.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Samsung:

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

• William M. Fink

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: A partner in the Intellectual Property & Technology practice, Tim Fink is a former Vice Chief Judge, Lead Judge, and Senior Legal Advisor to the Director of the USPTO, with extensive experience in PTAB post-grant proceedings and high-stakes patent litigation in district courts and the USITC.

• Caitlin Hogan

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Caitlin Hogan is an intellectual property litigator specializing in complex patent litigation, with significant experience in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, particularly in pharmaceutical, biological, chemical, and biotechnology industries.

• Raj Paul

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Raj Paul is a litigation counsel focusing on intellectual property and technology matters, with experience across all phases of litigation in district courts, the ITC, and IPRs, covering various fields including mobile communications, semiconductor devices, and data storage technologies.

• Brian Cook

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: A highly trained patent and technology litigator with a doctorate in nuclear physics, Brian Cook has extensive experience in patent infringement, trade secret, and licensing disputes in District Court, the ITC, and over 50 IPR and CBM proceedings before the USPTO.

• Nicholas Whilt

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Nicholas Whilt is an experienced litigator with substantial success in high-stakes intellectual property and technology litigation, frequently representing clients in Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission and numerous post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

• Benjamin Haber

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: An intellectual property litigator recognized by Chambers USA for PTAB practice, Ben Haber has appeared in over 150 PTAB proceedings and numerous Federal Circuit appeals and District Court matters, and previously served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (In-House Counsel)

• Matthew Bathon

  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Samsung Electronics (in-house)
  • Experience Note: Matthew Bathon coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and focuses his practice on Section 337 investigations and IP disputes across various technologies, including solar modules, LED, GPS, and telecommunications.

• Phillip Lee

  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Firm & Office: Samsung Electronics (in-house)
  • Experience Note: Phillip Lee is a veteran litigator with substantive experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, having appeared before federal district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He manages Samsung's patent cases with outside counsel.

The counsel of record representing Omni MedSci, Inc. in the IPR2025-01252 proceeding includes:

For Omni MedSci, Inc. (Patent Owner):

• Jennifer Hayes (Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in available IPR docket information.
  • Note: IPR docket entries indicate Jennifer Hayes as counsel for the Patent Owner.

It is important to note that while the IPR case (IPR2025-01252) specifically lists Jennifer Hayes as counsel for Omni MedSci, other related district court patent infringement cases brought by Omni MedSci against Samsung and other defendants (e.g., OMNI MEDSCI, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-01070 and Case No. 2:25-cv-00483 in the Eastern District of Texas, and Case No. 2:26-cv-00356) identify additional attorneys representing Omni MedSci. These attorneys primarily appear to be from The Davis Firm, PC.

For the related district court case OMNI MEDSCI, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD. et al (Case No. 2:24-cv-01070), the following attorneys are listed for Omni MedSci, Inc.:

• William Ellsworth Davis, III (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: The Davis Firm, PC - Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Davis is a prominent patent litigation attorney, frequently representing patent owners in the Eastern District of Texas. He has been involved in numerous patent infringement cases, including those brought by Omni MedSci against other technology companies.
• Ty William Wilson (Counsel)
  • Firm: The Davis Firm, PC - Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Mr. Wilson has also appeared as counsel for Omni MedSci in related patent infringement litigation.

It's common for different legal teams to handle IPR proceedings at the PTAB versus district court litigation, though there can be overlap. The provided IPR docket information specifically names Jennifer Hayes as counsel for the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01252.