Litigation

Unknown Petitioner v. Omni MedSci, Inc.

Institution Granted

PGR2026-00003

Terminated
2026-05-06

Patents at issue (1)

12193790PTAB challenge active

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

A post-grant review proceeding was filed at the PTAB challenging patent 12193790, and the PTAB granted institution of the review.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This case involves a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. The patent owner, Omni MedSci, Inc., is a privately held non-practicing entity (NPE) based in Michigan, founded by Mohammed N. Islam, a professor at the University of Michigan. Omni MedSci actively asserts its patent portfolio, primarily related to medical device technology, and has engaged in numerous patent infringement lawsuits against major technology and wearable device companies. The petitioner in this PGR is WHOOP, Inc., which filed the petition challenging the '790 patent.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790, titled "Wearable devices comprising semiconductor diode light sources with improved signal-to-noise ratio," generally describes a wearable device and associated methods for measuring physiological parameters. This includes monitoring parameters that change with hand or finger movement, or those related to blood constituents or blood flow, using a light source with semiconductor diodes and a synchronized detection system. Although no specific "accused product" is directly under review in a validity challenge like a PGR, Omni MedSci has asserted similar patents against various wearable devices, including those from companies like Samsung, Apple, Fossil, OnePlus, and WHOOP, Inc.

The procedural posture places this matter before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number PGR2026-00003. The PTAB granted institution of the review on May 6, 2026. This venue is significant as PGRs allow for a broad range of validity challenges against patents filed after March 16, 2013, offering a powerful alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. Notably, the Director of the USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review concerning the eligibility of the '790 patent for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) versus a PGR. On May 14, 2026, the Director determined that the '790 patent is eligible for Post-Grant Review and, consequently, ineligible for IPR, vacating a parallel IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01253) that had also been instituted to challenge the same patent. This highlights the critical importance of selecting the correct PTAB trial vehicle. The case is notable for Omni MedSci's established pattern as an NPE asserting patents in the competitive wearable technology market, and for the Director's intervention to clarify the appropriate PTAB review type, which could set precedent for similar future challenges.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for PGR2026-00003 and Parallel Litigation

This case involves a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, PGR2026-00003, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790, owned by Omni MedSci, Inc. PGRs are typically filed within nine months of a patent's issuance and can challenge a patent's validity on any ground under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2) or (3), including §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (excluding best mode). These PTAB proceedings often run parallel to district court patent infringement litigation.

PTAB Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00003)

  • PGR Filing & Institution: An unknown petitioner filed a Post-Grant Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. The PTAB subsequently granted institution of the review on 2026-05-06. This decision means the PTAB determined that the petitioner demonstrated it is "more likely than not that at least one claim challenged is unpatentable." The patent owner in this proceeding is Omni MedSci, Inc.
  • Claim Construction: In PGR proceedings, the PTAB applies the broadest reasonable interpretation to construe the challenged claims, and there is no presumption of validity for the patent.
  • Subsequent Stages: Following institution, the patent owner, Omni MedSci, will typically have three months to file a response and/or propose amendments to the challenged claims. The PTAB is mandated to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting the trial, though a single six-month extension may be granted for good cause.

Parallel District Court Litigation: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc.

The PGR proceeding (PGR2026-00003) is directly related to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Omni MedSci, Inc. against WHOOP, Inc. in the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 25-140).

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings: Omni MedSci, Inc. initiated the lawsuit, alleging that WHOOP, Inc. infringes several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (referred to as the '790 patent in the litigation). Omni MedSci has been characterized as a non-practicing entity.
  • Pre-trial Motions (Motion to Stay): WHOOP, Inc. filed a renewed motion to stay the district court proceedings, citing the pending PTAB reviews, including PGR2026-00003 challenging the '790 patent, and other Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and an ex parte reexamination against other asserted patents.
  • Outcome of Motion to Stay: The District Court for the District of Delaware conditionally granted WHOOP's motion to stay the litigation. This decision was made after the PTAB had instituted PGR2026-00003 and other challenges to the patents-in-suit. This stay allows the PTAB proceedings to advance, potentially resolving or narrowing the issues in the district court case.

Prior Related Litigation and PTAB Proceedings

Omni MedSci, Inc. has a history of patent litigation, having previously sued Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. for infringement of some of the same patents involved in the WHOOP litigation. Notably, some of these earlier cases also involved parallel PTAB proceedings, such as IPRs. For instance, an IPR involving Omni MedSci and Apple concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 was remanded by the Federal Circuit to the PTAB in June 2024 for further consideration on claim construction issues.

Current Posture

As of 2026-05-29, the PGR2026-00003 proceeding challenging patent 12193790 is active at the PTAB, with institution having been granted on 2026-05-06. The parallel patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware (Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., Civil Action No. 25-140) is currently conditionally stayed pending the outcome of the PTAB proceedings. A final written decision from the PTAB on PGR2026-00003 is expected within approximately one year from the institution date.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

In the Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding PGR2026-00003, the petitioner, identified as the "plaintiff" in this context, is WHOOP, Inc.. This PGR was filed against Omni MedSci, Inc., challenging patent 12193790.

As of the current date, the specific counsel of record representing WHOOP, Inc. in PGR2026-00003 has not been explicitly identified in the provided search results. While one result mentions "Attorneys for Defendant WHOOP, Inc." in a related district court case (Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., Civil Action No. 25-140), it does not list the individual attorneys or their firms for this specific PTAB PGR proceeding.

Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner, WHOOP, Inc., in PGR2026-00003, has not been identified from the available information.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research counsel for both sides, starting with the PTAB docket and the parallel Delaware litigation.

Good progress. Let me pin down the counsel of record in the PGR and the Delaware docket appearances.

Let me verify the PGR docket's counsel listing and the Delaware docket appearances in more detail.

Preliminary note on party roles (important)

The caption metadata for this matter lists Defendant = Omni MedSci, Inc., but the two proceedings at issue reverse the parties' alignment:

Proceeding Plaintiff / Petitioner Defendant / Respondent
PGR2026-00003 (PTAB) WHOOP, Inc. (petitioner) Omni MedSci, Inc. (patent owner / respondent)
Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del., Judge Bryson) — the infringement action Omni MedSci, Inc. WHOOP, Inc.

Because the request asks for "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I have listed both defense-side teams below: Omni's PGR team (the "defendant/respondent" per the case metadata) and WHOOP's Delaware defense team (the defendant in the infringement suit). The prior section of this report covered WHOOP only in its capacity as PGR petitioner; the Delaware trial team was not identified there.

A. Counsel of record for Omni MedSci, Inc. — respondent/patent owner in PGR2026-00003

Per the PGR docket's counsel listing ("Respondent Counsel: Hayes, Jennifer et al," ipverse PGR2026-00003) and the USPTO's own signature blocks in the related '790 patent Director Review papers, Omni is represented by Nixon Peabody LLP:

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Jennifer Hayes (Reg. No. 50,845) Lead counsel / respondent counsel of record Nixon Peabody LLP — 300 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA (also Palo Alto, CA) Partner and Co-Lead of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings team; ranked among PTAB's top practitioners (2025). Omni's PTAB lead across the parallel Samsung/Fossil/OnePlus challenges (IPR2025-01249–01254; PGR2025-00063–00064). Source
Daniel S. Stringfield Of counsel / PTAB & district court Nixon Peabody LLP — 70 W. Madison St., Suite 5200, Chicago, IL Also Omni's lead Delaware-side counsel in Omni v. WHOOP (appeared at the Oct. 24, 2025 scheduling hearing). Appears for Omni in the Apple and E.D. Tex. cases as well.
Timothy (Timothy Paul) Maloney Back-up counsel Nixon Peabody LLP — Chicago, IL Listed in USPTO "FOR PATENT OWNER" blocks in the '790 Director Review papers and in Omni's E.D. Tex. dockets.
Angelo J. Christopher Back-up counsel Nixon Peabody LLP — Chicago, IL Appears in Omni's PTAB filings and party correspondence in the Samsung proceedings.
Benjamin R. Holt Back-up counsel Nixon Peabody LLP — Chicago, IL Same PTAB team; listed on Omni's E.D. Tex. appearances.
Daniel D. Georgiev Back-up counsel Nixon Peabody LLP — Chicago, IL Same PTAB team; listed in the '790 Director Review signature block.
Stephen B. ("Steve") Brauerman Delaware local counsel (district court only) Bayard, P.A. — 600 N. King St., Suite 400, Wilmington, DE Appeared for Omni at the Oct. 24, 2025 hearing in No. 25-140. Not verified as an appearance in the PTAB matter — PTAB practice does not require local counsel, and the PGR counsel listing shows only Nixon Peabody.

Caveat: I could not retrieve the actual "Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices" or power-of-attorney paper in PGR2026-00003 to confirm the lead/back-up designation order for that specific docket; the roles above are reconstructed from the PGR docket's counsel index and the USPTO's caption blocks in the companion '790 papers, which name the same Nixon Peabody team.

B. Counsel of record for WHOOP, Inc. — defendant in Omni MedSci v. WHOOP, No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Brian Rosenthal Lead trial counsel (Delaware action); first back-up PTAB counsel Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — 200 Park Ave., New York, NY Appeared for WHOOP at the Oct. 24, 2025 scheduling hearing before Judge Bryson (Tr. at 2–3). Named "Lead Lawyer, Patent Litigation" and IAM Patent 1000 "leading patent lawyer"; notable defense wins include the directed verdict for VMware/Dell EMC in the WSOU case and defense verdicts for Cisco. He is being designated a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)(2) in WHOOP's PTAB filings. Gibson Dunn bio
Jennifer Ying Local counsel (Delaware) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP — 1201 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE Delaware IP litigator; entered for WHOOP after Shaw Keller LLP withdrew and appeared at the Oct. 24, 2025 hearing (Tr. at 2). Transcript
Jaysen S. Chung (Reg. No. 68,199) Lead counsel in WHOOP's parallel PTAB challenges (petitioner side) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA Named lead counsel in WHOOP's PTAB petitions (e.g., IPR2025-01584 on the '304 patent) with service address GDC-Omni-Whoop@gibsondunn.com; the PGR2026-00003 counsel index lists "Chung, Jaysen et al" for petitioner.
Karen E. Keller (Shaw Keller LLP) Withdrawn local counsel Shaw Keller LLP — Wilmington, DE Filed Notice of Withdrawal as counsel for WHOOP on April 1, 2025 (D.I. 9, No. 25-140), replaced by Morris Nichols. Justia docket

No WHOOP in-house counsel is identified by name in any source I located; WHOOP's PTAB filings list only the Gibson Dunn attorneys, and no in-house attorney appears on the Delaware docket or the hearing transcript.

C. Points to note / gaps

  • Who is not counsel here. The Ropes & Gray / Sheppard Mullin / Mayer Brown / Fish & Richardson / Cherry Johnson attorneys who appear in the '790 Director Review papers represent Samsung, Fossil, OnePlus and Oura in the E.D. Tex. and companion PTAB matters — not WHOOP. Do not conflate those teams with this case.
  • Not verified: any PGR2026-00003-specific notice of appearance, the exact lead/back-up ordering on that docket, and whether Omni added litigation counsel (e.g., Bayard) in the PGR after institution.
  • Discrepancy to flag against the metadata: the metadata lists institution/termination on 2026-05-06, but the PGR docket indexes and the Director's own order state that institution of PGR2026-00003 was issued April 1, 2026 (Paper 10, notice granting institution; Paper 14, decision granting institution), and the D. Del. stay opinion cites the same institution event (D.I. 98). The 2026-05-06 date more likely corresponds to a subsequent docket entry; the May 14, 2026 date belongs to the Director's sua sponte review decision vacating IPR2025-01253 (Samsung), which is a separate proceeding. Both the May 6 date and the earlier report's framing of it should be treated as unconfirmed.