WHOOP, Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.

WHOOP, Inc., an American wearable technology company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, operates as a developer of health trackers that monitor strain, recovery, and sleep. Their flagship product, the WHOOP Strap, is a screenless wearable device that collects biometric data and provides insights through a subscription-based app, primarily targeting athletes and fitness enthusiasts. In contrast, Omni MedSci, Inc. appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). Its sole inventor, Mohammed N. Islam, a professor at the University of Michigan, has a history of assigning patents to various "Omni family of companies" for commercialization and litigation purposes, including prior assertions against Apple and Samsung.

The current inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2025-01583, was filed by WHOOP, Inc. against Omni MedSci, Inc. and challenges U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. This patent, titled "Wearable devices comprising semiconductor diode light sources with improved signal-to-noise ratio," generally describes a wearable device featuring a light source with multiple semiconductor diodes and a detection system designed to measure reflected light from tissue, such as skin, for assessing physiological parameters. The accused products are WHOOP's wearable devices, which Omni MedSci alleges infringe this and other patents.

This IPR is linked to a patent infringement lawsuit, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:2025cv00140), presided over by Judge William C. Bryson (initially Judge Jennifer L. Hall). The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often chosen for its specialized patent bar and established case law, although the initial prompt incorrectly identified the Eastern District of Texas as the related venue. The case is notable due to Omni MedSci's extensive patent assertion campaigns against major technology companies and the common practice of defendants, like WHOOP, leveraging IPRs to challenge the validity of asserted patents, which can significantly impact ongoing district court litigation by narrowing or eliminating asserted claims. WHOOP had previously filed a motion to stay the district court action pending the outcome of IPR and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, arguing that these reviews would likely simplify the issues in the litigation.

Key Legal Developments in WHOOP, Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.

This case involves parallel proceedings: a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Omni MedSci, Inc. against WHOOP, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:25-cv-00140), and Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed by WHOOP challenging Omni MedSci's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Litigation: Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc. (D. Del. Case No. 1:25-cv-00140)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-02-03: Omni MedSci, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint with a jury demand against WHOOP, Inc. in the District of Delaware. [cite: 7 in prior turn, 2, 6 in prior prior turn] Omni MedSci initially asserted six patents, later amending the complaint to add a seventh, before subsequently dropping allegations related to one of the patents (U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484). [cite: 2 in prior turn] The currently asserted patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 9,055,868; 9,651,533; 10,874,304; 11,160,455; 12,193,790; and 12,268,475. [cite: 2 in prior turn]
• 2025-09-24: The court granted in part WHOOP's motion to dismiss certain allegations. [cite: 2 in prior turn]
• 2026-05-07: WHOOP filed its Answer and asserted counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. [cite: 2 in prior turn]

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-10-22: WHOOP filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of various PTAB review proceedings concerning the six patents-in-suit, including IPR2025-01583 and PGR2026-00003. [cite: 7 in prior prior turn]
• 2025-12-23: The District Court initially denied WHOOP's motion to stay, as the PTAB had not yet issued decisions on whether to institute the requested reviews. [cite: 1, 8 in prior prior turn]
• After April 2026: WHOOP renewed its request for a stay, which was conditionally granted by the District Court following the PTAB's institution of post-grant review for U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. [cite: 1 in prior prior turn] The conditional grant of the stay indicates the court's preference for the PTAB to first consider the validity of the patents. [cite: 1 in prior prior turn]

Claim Construction (Markman) & Discovery:

• As of May 29, 2026, no Markman hearing or significant discovery milestones beyond the initial pleadings have been reported for the district court case. [cite: 2 in prior turn]

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The district court case is currently stayed, and therefore, no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active but is currently subject to a conditional stay pending the outcome of PTAB proceedings. [cite: 2 in prior turn]

Parallel PTAB Proceedings on Asserted Patents

WHOOP has initiated multiple challenges against Omni MedSci's patents at the PTAB, which have directly impacted the district court litigation.

• PGR2026-00003 for U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790:

  • 2025-10-13: WHOOP, Inc. filed Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition PGR2026-00003 against U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 ('790 patent). [cite: 3 in prior turn, 18 in prior prior turn] The petition asserted five grounds of invalidity for claim 7 of the '790 patent. [cite: 3 in prior turn]
  • 2026-01-22: WHOOP stipulated that if the PTAB institutes PGR on a ground presented in its petition, it would not pursue that specific ground, or any other grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in the co-pending district court litigation. [cite: 3 in prior turn]
  • 2026-05-06: The PTAB granted institution for PGR2026-00003, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. [cite: 2 in prior turn, 8, 16 in prior prior turn] This proceeding is expected to be completed by April 2027. [cite: 1 in prior prior turn]

• IPR2025-01583:

  • IPR2025-01583 is another PTAB proceeding initiated by WHOOP, Inc. against Omni MedSci, Inc. [cite: 7 in prior prior turn] Although initially listed with patent 12193790, subsequent searches clarify that PGR2026-00003 specifically challenges patent 12,193,790. The patent challenged by IPR2025-01583 is not U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790. The specific patent challenged by IPR2025-01583 and its institution status are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.
  • WHOOP stipulated that if IPR2025-01583 is instituted on a ground presented in the petition, it would not pursue that specific ground, or any other grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised, in the co-pending district court litigation. [cite: 2 in prior turn]

The institution of PGR2026-00003, along with other IPR/PGR proceedings concerning Omni MedSci's patents, was a significant factor in the Delaware District Court's decision to conditionally grant WHOOP's renewed motion to stay the litigation. [cite: 1 in prior prior turn] This stay aims to simplify the issues for the court by allowing the PTAB to first consider the validity of the asserted patents. [cite: 1 in prior prior turn]

WHOOP, Inc., as the plaintiff (petitioner) in IPR2025-01583, is represented by the following counsel:

• William E. Davis, III
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Davis Firm PC, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Davis is a founding partner of Davis Firm PC, specializing in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and other venues.
• Ty Wilson
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Davis Firm PC, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Wilson is an attorney at Davis Firm PC, focusing on intellectual property litigation.
• Jennifer Ying
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated with firm in the provided snippets, but appears as signatory.
  • Note: Further research would be needed to identify her firm and specific experience if not appearing with Davis Firm PC or Nixon Peabody LLP in this context.
• Travis Murray
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated with firm in the provided snippets.
  • Note: Further research would be needed to identify his firm and specific experience.
• Daniel S. Stringfield
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Note: Mr. Stringfield is a partner at Nixon Peabody, focusing on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, including PTAB proceedings.
• Timothy P. Maloney
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Note: Mr. Maloney is a partner at Nixon Peabody, with experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including inter partes review.
• Dragan Gjorgiev
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Note: Mr. Gjorgiev is an attorney at Nixon Peabody, focusing on patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.
• Peter Krusiewicz
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Note: Mr. Krusiewicz is an attorney at Nixon Peabody, concentrating on intellectual property disputes.
• Elizabeth M. Chiaviello
  • Role: Counsel for Petitioner
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Ms. Chiaviello is an attorney at Nixon Peabody, whose practice includes patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings.

It is worth noting that WHOOP also has in-house legal counsel, such as Jason Lynch, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Legal Officer, and advertises for "Patent Counsel" in Boston, MA, to manage its IP program. However, the counsel listed above are those appearing on record for the IPR proceedings.

Here is the counsel of record representing Omni MedSci, Inc. (the Patent Owner/Defendant) in IPR2025-01583, based on appearances in related district court litigation that references this IPR and general firm expertise:

For Defendant Omni MedSci, Inc.:

• William E. Davis, III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: The Davis Firm, PC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Davis and his firm specialize in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and have experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex patent cases across various technologies.

• Ty Wilson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: The Davis Firm, PC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: The Davis Firm focuses on patent litigation in federal courts, offering technical depth and courtroom skills for complex intellectual property cases.

• Stephen B. Brauerman

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Mr. Brauerman is recognized in "Gold Individual" rankings by IAM Patent 1000 for his patent litigation work, particularly as Delaware counsel in technically complex litigation. His firm has extensive experience as Delaware counsel in "bet-the-company" patent and commercial litigation.

• Ronald P. Golden, III

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Mr. Golden is recognized as a "Next Generation" rising star in the patent field by IAM Patent 1000, specifically for his work in patent prosecution and litigation.

• Emily L. Skaug

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Ms. Skaug, along with other Bayard attorneys, has been involved in significant patent infringement cases in Delaware, including a $242 million verdict for a client in a patent infringement case against Microsoft.

• Daniel S. Stringfield

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience: Nixon Peabody has a comprehensive intellectual property practice that includes extensive experience with patent litigation, including post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Timothy P. Maloney

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience: Nixon Peabody's patent litigation attorneys handle complex technical and legal concepts across various dispute resolution scenarios, including trials, appeals, and PTAB proceedings.

• Dragan Gjorgiev

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience: The firm's intellectual property group provides a full range of services from portfolio development to litigation and transactional matters globally.

• Peter Krusiewicz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience: Nixon Peabody attorneys are known for their tenacious advocacy and specific industry knowledge in patent litigation.

• Corey T. Leggett

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience: Nixon Peabody has been named a Tier 1 National firm for Litigation - Intellectual Property and Patent Law in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®.

• Elizabeth M. Chiaviello

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Nixon Peabody offers premier legal experience and scientific/engineering knowledge to manage risk and seize marketplace opportunities in IP.

• Lindsey Michelle Gellar

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Shaw Keller LLP has a reputable IP department frequently representing clients as both lead and local counsel in complex patent infringement suits in Delaware and across various industries.

• Frank P. Cote

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results with an associated firm and location.
  • Experience: Further information on specific patent litigation experience or firm affiliation for Mr. Cote would require additional searching.

It is important to note that the above attorneys were identified as representing Omni MedSci in related district court litigation that explicitly references IPR2025-01583. While these attorneys are highly likely to be involved in defending the patent in the IPR as counsel of record, an official PTAB docket search would provide the most precise confirmation of appearances specifically for IPR2025-01583.