Unknown Petitioner v. Omni MedSci, Inc.

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 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.

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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["PGR2026-00003 Omni MedSci counsel", "Omni MedSci PTAB counsel", "Omni MedSci patent litigation attorneys", "Omni MedSci Inc. legal representation", "Omni MedSci whoop PGR counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for Omni MedSci, Inc. (the defendant/patent owner) in the PTAB PGR2026-00003 case. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys. I will use web search with various keywords related to the case number, parties, and type of proceeding (PGR).It appears that the counsel of record for Omni MedSci, Inc. in PGR2026-00003 has not been made publicly available through the typical web search channels like Law360, Reuters Legal, or general legal news searches regarding PTAB proceedings. Docket information for specific attorneys is often found directly on the PTAB's Public Access to Documents (PADC) system, which is not directly searchable via general web search engines. Since I do not have direct access to the PTAB PADC system or PACER for this specific PGR, I cannot identify the attorneys who have appeared.

Therefore, at this time, I cannot provide the names, roles, firms, or relevant experience for the attorneys representing Omni MedSci, Inc. in PGR2026-00003.