US 10172523

I'll search for the specific patent and any related 2026 litigation, then summarize.

Let me verify the claim set and check for '523-specific proceedings.

One more check on the exact claim set of the '523 patent.

US 10,172,523 B2 — Summary

Caveat on scope of this answer: The bibliographic and disclosure details below are grounded in the full patent text supplied to me (Google Patents facsimile of the granted patent) plus targeted web searches. I could not find any USPTO/PTAB proceeding or any CAFC 2026 docket naming U.S. Patent No. 10,172,523 specifically. Where claim numbering is not verifiable from my sources, I flag it explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the patent document)

Provenance / continuation chain (from the face of the patent and its file history):
16/015,737 is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/594,053 (filed May 12, 2017; now US 10,188,299), which traces back through Ser. No. 14/875,709 (now US 9,651,533) and Ser. No. 14/108,986 (filed Dec. 17, 2013; now US 9,164,032), claiming the Dec. 31, 2012 priority date. The 2033-12-17 expiration reflects a 20-year term measured from the Dec. 17, 2013 parent filing, and the terminal disclaimer ties the enforceable term to that family.

(Google Patents labels legal status an assumption and not a legal conclusion; the same caveat applies here.)

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A measurement system includes a light source having semiconductor sources, a multiplexer, and one or more fused silica fibers configured to form an output optical beam having one or more optical wavelengths modulated at a modulation frequency. A light beam set-up includes a monochromator forming a filtered optical beam. A measurement apparatus delivers the filtered optical beam to a sample. A receiver receives a spectroscopy output beam generated from the sample by the filtered optical beam. The receiver is configured to use a lock-in technique that detects the modulation frequency, and to generate first and second signals responsive to light received while the light source is off and on, respectively. The measurement system improves a signal-to-noise ratio of the spectroscopy output beam by differencing the first and second signals. The receiver processes the spectroscopy output beam using chemometrics or multivariate analysis to permit identification of materials within the sample."

(The abstract text as displayed via Google Patents is truncated/garbled mid-word in the retrieved source; the substance matches the related application US 2018/0296097 A1.)

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '523 specification frames the invention broadly as a non-destructive, non-contact, stand-off-capable near-infrared/SWIR spectroscopy platform (counterfeit-drug screening, illicit-drug detection, pharmaceutical process analytical technology, hyperspectral imaging), with a heavy emphasis on noise reduction. Three independent claims are evident from the claim-like text reproduced in the Google Patents "Definitions" extraction:

Independent claim 1 — modulated-source spectrometer with lock-in + off/on differencing + chemometrics

1. A measurement system whose light source is built from (a) multiple semiconductor sources producing an input beam, (b) a multiplexer combining them into an intermediate beam, and (c) one or more fibers (at least partly fused silica) forming the output beam, which is modulated at a modulation frequency.
2. A light beam set-up including a monochromator that filters the output beam.
3. A measurement apparatus that delivers the filtered beam to a sample.
4. A receiver that (i) uses a lock-in technique tuned to the modulation frequency, (ii) captures a first signal with the source off and a second signal with the source on, (iii) differences the two signals to improve SNR, and (iv) applies chemometrics/multivariate analysis to identify materials in the sample, producing an output signal based at least in part on the sample's chemical composition.

Independent claim (framed as a second "measurement system") — remote/stand-off variant
Same architecture (multiplexed semiconductor sources + fast fused-silica fiber + modulated output; light beam set-up forming a filtered beam; measurement apparatus; receiver with lock-in detection at the modulation frequency; off/on signal differencing for SNR), but expressly requiring that the light source and the receiver are remote from the sample. Notably, this version describes a "light beam set-up" generally rather than requiring a monochromator.

Independent claim (framed as a third "measurement system") — pulsed / time-gated variant
Same source architecture (semiconductor sources, multiplexer, fused-silica fiber), but the light source and output beam are pulsed; the receiver is configured to perform time-gated detection, to be synchronized with the source pulses, and to generate an output signal based on the sample's chemical composition, with source and receiver remote from the sample.

Also appearing in the claimed/definitional text: a family of LED-based device and wearable-device claims — a light source of multiple LEDs emitting near-infrared wavelengths between 700 nm and 2500 nm, configured to boost SNR by increasing light intensity above an initial intensity and increasing pulse rate above an initial pulse rate; a lens delivering light to tissue; a reflective surface redirecting reflected light; a detection system synchronized to the light source; and a detection system placed at different distances from a first and second LED so that a comparison of the two resulting signals forms the output signal. The wearable variant adds the same LED/intensity/pulse-rate SNR features plus the multi-distance detector arrangement.

Uncertainty flag: I cannot verify from my sources whether that LED/wearable text corresponds to additional independent claims in the '523 patent (e.g., claims near 9–17) or to dependent claims, because the granted claim set was not reproduced verbatim in the material I retrieved. The three measurement-system groupings above are clearly independent-style claim text; the LED/wearable material is claim-like but its independent/dependent status in '523 is not confirmed. The patent does recite 20 claims total.

4. Litigation / 2026 docket status — what I found and did not find

No 2026 CAFC appeal and no IPR/PGR petition specifically directed at U.S. 10,172,523 was located. I want to be explicit about this rather than infer one.

What does exist is extensive, ongoing 2025–2026 activity against sibling patents in the same Dec. 31, 2012 Omni MedSci family — which is relevant context but is not the '523 patent:

• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., C.A. No. 25-140 (D. Del.) asserts the '868, '533, '484, '304, '455, '790 and '475 patents — the '523 is not among them (courtlistener D. Del. 25-140, D.I. 61 and D.I. 101 memoranda).
• PTAB (2025–2026): Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus and WHOOP challenges to family members, e.g. IPR2025-01249 ('868), IPR2025-01250 ('533), IPR2025-01251 ('304), IPR2025-01252 ('455), IPR2025-01253 ('790), IPR2025-01254 ('475); PGR2025-00063, PGR2025-00064, PGR2026-00003; IPR2025-01253 was instituted Feb. 3, 2026 and then stayed pending sua sponte Director Review (USPTO IPR2025-01253 order; Law360, May 19, 2026 — "PTAB will no longer conduct an IPR into the validity of an Omni MedSci wearable device patent, now that there will be a separate post-grant review").
• Federal Circuit: Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 21-1229 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2022) affirmed invalidity of challenged '533 claims; Omni MedSci v. Apple, No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024) addressed the '484; and No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) remains pending as to the '484, not the '523.
• Notably, in an Apple IPR petition concerning the '484 patent, U.S. Pat. No. 10,172,523 is listed merely as a related family member, not as the challenged patent (IPR2021-00453 petition, Mandatory Notices).

Bottom line: as of the information available to me, the '523 patent appears to be a non-asserted, non-challenged family member that went abandoned/expired for fee reasons, with its subject matter overlapping the asserted '484/'304/'455/'790 patents. If you need a docket-level confirmation of that negative (e.g., a Pacer/PTAB docket sweep as of a specific date), I'd recommend verifying directly — I cannot certify the absence of a 2026 filing with high confidence.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,172,523. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into litigation specifically asserting US 10,172,523.

Litigation Search: US Patent 10,172,523

Bottom line

Based on my searches of patent-litigation sources (Google Patents litigation data, PTAB/PTACTS petition exhibits, CourtListener/PACER docket records, CAFC opinions, and Unified/Darts-IP-linked data), I did not find any case in which U.S. Patent No. 10,172,523 ("Light-based spectroscopy with improved signal-to-noise ratio," inventor Mohammed N. Islam, assignee Omni MedSci, Inc.) was itself asserted as a patent-in-suit.

The most direct evidence in my results is that the '523 patent appears in litigation-related filings only as a "related issued patent" in the Omni MedSci portfolio — i.e., IPR petitioners list it in the family tree, but it is not among the claims asserted. For example, in the Samsung IPR petitions concerning the related '484 patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,172,523 is listed under "is related to [the] following issued patents or pending applications," and the patents actually identified as asserted in litigation are the ’533, ’040, ’286, ’698, ’546, ’299, ’113, and ’484 patents — not the ’523.

I therefore cannot confirm known litigation specifically involving US 10,172,523, and I will not fabricate parties, case numbers, or outcomes.

Important disambiguation (do NOT conflate these)

Per the strict-instruction rule, these three distinct identifiers must be kept separate; search noise conflates them:

Google Patents does carry a "Family has litigation" flag for US 10,172,523, but the flag points to the Omni MedSci portfolio litigation (below) rather than to a suit asserting this particular number.

Related Omni MedSci portfolio litigation (context only — '523 not identified as asserted)

The ’523 patent shares a priority lineage (provisional filed 2012-12-31) with patents that have been litigated. The related cases I could confirm:

1. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) — E.D. Tex., No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS (and companion No. 2:18-cv-00429-RWS), filed 2018. Asserted ’533, ’040, ’286, ’698 (Apple Watch Series 4). Transferred to N.D. Cal. (2019); terminated.
2. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — N.D. Cal., No. 4:19-cv-05673-YGR.
3. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — N.D. Cal., No. 4:19-cv-05924-YGR.
4. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — N.D. Cal., No. 4:20-cv-00563-YGR, filed 2020-01-24 (’113 patent).
5. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — Fed. Cir. No. 20-1715 (interlocutory standing appeal; decided Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).
6. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. — E.D. Tex., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (asserting the ’475 and related patents).
7. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc. — D. Del., No. 1:25-cv-00140-JLH.
8. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — W.D. Tex., No. 7:26-cv-00226, filed 2026-06-08 (asserting newer patents such as the ’475, ’787, ’346, ’805, ’194).

Parallel PTAB proceedings (Apple v. Omni MedSci): IPR2019-00916 (’533), IPR2020-00029 (’546), IPR2021-00453 (’484), and the 2025 Samsung-led IPR/PGR cluster (IPR2025-01249 through -01253; PGR2025-00063/-00064) against the ’475, ’868, ’533, ’304, ’455, ’790 and related patents.

In none of these did I find US 10,172,523 listed among the patents-in-suit.

Caveats and recommended verification

• My search coverage is incomplete; PACER/Unified Patents litigation databases and Darts-IP ("First worldwide family litigation filed" link on the Google Patents page for this patent) may contain a case I could not retrieve.
• To confirm definitively, I recommend running US 10,172,523 as an exact-string, per-patent search in: (a) Unified Patents Portal litigation (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation), (b) Darts-IP (the family link cited on the patent's Google page), and (c) PACER/JPML and CAFC dockets restricted to the exact number "10,172,523" — excluding "10,217,523."
• If you can point me to a specific docket number, I can attempt to pull the complaint's patent list to confirm whether ’523 is asserted.

Status: No litigation specifically asserting US 10,172,523 was identified in the sources searched.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before concluding.

Let me verify the '523 specifically — including whether it was ever asserted or challenged, and its current legal status.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,172,523 B2

"Light-based spectroscopy with improved signal-to-noise ratio"
Assignee: Omni MedSci, Inc. · Inventor: Mohammed N. Islam · Granted 2019-01-08 · Earliest priority claimed 2012-12-31
Analysis date: 2026-09-22

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 10,172,523: 0 — active: 0; claims invalidated: 0; claims sustained: 0; settled: 0; institution denied: 0.

The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and my independent web search confirmed no contradicting record: the '523 appears in PTAB files only as a "related patent" listed in other parties' § 42.8(b)(2) mandatory notices (e.g., in Apple's IPR2021-00453 petition against the '484 patent), never as the challenged patent. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB outcome to cite, and no claim of the '523 has been canceled or sustained — the slate is completely clean. That cuts both ways: you get zero free invalidations and zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel against you, but you also get the Board's demonstrated willingness to invalidate this family's closely-related claims, which is a strong § 314(a)/§ 325(d) story in your favor.

Two threshold flags before anything else:

1. Google Patents lists the '523's legal status as "Expired - Fee Related" (fetched 2026-09-22), with anticipated expiration listed as 2033-12-17. That label typically signals lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees. I could not independently verify this against USPTO maintenance-fee records. Verify it first at USPTO Patent Center — if the patent has lapsed under 35 U.S.C. § 41(b), the PTAB question is academic.
2. The '523 has not been asserted in any of Omni's known campaigns (Apple, Samsung, WHOOP). Its claims are spectrometer/remote-sensing claims (monochromator, fused-silica fiber, lock-in receiver, off/on differencing), not the wearable claims at issue in the family's live litigation. § 315(b)'s one-year clock has therefore never started for anyone.

Proceedings against U.S. 10,172,523

None. Zero. No IPR, no PGR, no CBM, no derivation proceeding, no reexamination. There is no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, no appeal, and no estoppel — because no proceeding ever existed. Any "per-proceeding" entries would have to be invented, and I will not fabricate proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions.

Context: AIA trials on related Omni MedSci patents (NOT proceedings against the '523)

These are provided because a '523 defendant will be litigating in the shadow of this family record. They confer no statutory estoppel as to the '523 — § 315(e)(2) estoppel is patent-specific — but they are the factual predicate any § 314(a) or collateral-estoppel argument would rest on. Confidence on dates below is moderate; treat them as pointers to the underlying papers, not as authoritative dockets.

Three patterns matter for the '523:

1. Every challenged claim in the '533/'484 branch has been invalidated. WHOOP's stay motion in D. Del. put it bluntly: "every claim arising from the '533 patent family that has been challenged has been found unpatentable." (D. Del. C.A. No. 25-140, D.I. 61 / D.I. 101.) The '523 sits in that same continuation chain (16/015,737 → 15/594,053 → … → 2012-12-31 priority).
2. Petitioners are running a coordinated parallel-petition playbook and a collateral-estoppel argument. Samsung expressly argued to the Board that "the Board already found claim limitations identical and/or substantially identical to those in Claim 7 of the '790 unpatentable in IPR2019-00916 and IPR2021-00453," and invoked Samsung v. Netlist, IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 (2025-05-15). If Omni ever asserts the '523, that template is available.
3. Omni's blanket 2012-12-31 priority representation is under successful attack. In the '790 proceedings, Director Squires found that a WHOOP-challenged Omni patent is an AIA patent notwithstanding Omni's own litigation position that it gets 2012-12-31 priority (reported 2026-05-08). That is directly relevant to the '523's own AIA status.

Key public documents:

• US10172523 on Google Patents — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10172523/en
• PTAB E2E portal (searchable by patent number) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 23-1034 (Fed. Cir. 2024-06-21, nonprecedential, Albright, J., sitting by designation) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/06/21/apple_inc._v._omni_medsci_inc..pdf
• D. Del. stay opinion, Omni MedSci v. WHOOP, No. 25-140 — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.88127/gov.uscourts.ded.88127.61.0.pdf ; later order at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv00140/[88127/101](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=88127-0101)/
• Director Review order staying IPR2025-01253 — https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2025-01253_Samsung_v_Omni_MedSci_SS_DR_Grant.pdf

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. No claim of U.S. 10,172,523 has been canceled, and none has been sustained — every claim is untested. If the '523 has, say, 20–30 claims, the entire set remains presumptively valid under § 282 and available to Omni. Note the asymmetry with the family: the '533 and '484 patents in the same continuation chain have been entirely invalidated at the Board, but those invalidations attach to the wearable-apparatus claim sets (LED arrays, spatially separated detectors, synchronization, wearer-detection), not to the '523's spectroscopy/measurement-system claims (semiconductor sources + multiplexer + fused-silica fiber + modulated output beam; monochromator or FTIR/dispersive spectrometer; lock-in receiver with on/off differencing; light source and receiver remote from the sample). A '523 invalidity case cannot be won by citation to the sibling FWDs alone — the claim language overlaps far less than in the '304/'455/'475 line, where Samsung was able to argue "identical and/or substantially identical" limitations.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever filed against the '523, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is zero as to this patent. No petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any ground — § 102, § 103, § 112 — on any '523 claim. Practically, a defendant today has the full prior-art universe available, including art that was raised (or could have been raised) in the '533/'484 IPRs without any estoppel consequence here. Three live constraints, though: (i) § 315(b) — if you have been served with a complaint asserting the '523, the one-year IPR clock is running and it is your only shot at a post-grant route; (ii) § 325(d) — the Board may exercise discretion where the same art was already before the Office, and the '523's prosecution history is intertwined with the family's; (iii) § 314(a) Fintiv-style / parallel-petition discretion, which the Director is actively reshaping (see the Revvo, Tesla, and Netlist-driven briefing in the 2025 Samsung petitions).

AIA status and vehicle selection. The '523 issued 2019-01-08 from application 16/015,737 (filed 2018-06-22), claiming a chain back to 2012-12-31. If its claims are supported by the 2012-12-31 disclosure, it is a pre-AIA patent, and IPR is available under § 311(c)(2) with no 9-month waiting period. If the '523 instead contains new matter such that its effective filing date is on/after 2013-03-16, it is an AIA patent — and PGR is time-barred (the 9-month window closed 2019-10-08), leaving IPR as the only vehicle either way. Given Director Squires' 2026 rulings rejecting Omni's 2012-12-31 priority position on at least one sibling, a petitioner should brief the priority question explicitly rather than stipulating to Omni's representation (which is exactly what Samsung did in the '790/'475 petitions and what WHOOP declined to do, to its benefit).

Pattern signals. Same petitioner, multiple IPRs: yes, but on siblings — Apple filed a series ('533, '546, '113, '484); Samsung and its co-petitioners filed a six-patent, seven-petition wave in August 2025; WHOOP followed in Delaware parallel-track and filed PGR2026-00003. Patent owner aggressiveness: Omni litigates broadly (Apple in E.D. Tex./N.D. Cal., Samsung in E.D. Tex., WHOOP in D. Del.) and defends at the Board, appealing adverse FWDs (No. 25-1646 pending on the '484). Defensive aggregator: none identified — every challenge I could source was filed by an accused infringer (Apple, Samsung/Fossil/Oura/OnePlus, WHOOP), not by Unified Patents or a similar entity. And yet the '523 itself has attracted nothing.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing an assertion of the '523:

1. Verify lapse status on day one. The patent's Google Patents legal status reads "Expired - Fee Related." Pull the maintenance-fee record in USPTO Patent Center before spending a dollar on invalidity. If fees lapsed and no petition to accept an unintentionally delayed payment under § 41(c) has been granted, the case is over and the PTAB analysis is moot.
2. No FWD to cite. There is no Final Written Decision on the '523 to quote — I will not manufacture one. Your invalidity narrative must be built fresh, but you may lean on the family record as context: thirteen AIA proceedings against sibling patents, with the '533 and '484 branches entirely invalidated. Frame this to the Board and to the district court as the same specification, the same inventor, and the same § 103 combinations succeeding repeatedly.
3. If you have been served, move fast on § 315(b). IPR is the only viable post-grant vehicle — PGR is time-barred (window closed 2019-10-08) whether or not the '523 is an AIA patent. Docket your one-year bar date from service immediately.
4. Assert no estoppel and reserve everything. Because the '523 is untested, neither you nor any prior petitioner is estopped. Preserve § 112 written-description/enablement theories (the '523 was issued from a 2018 continuation off a 2012-12-31 priority chain — priority support for the spectroscopy limitations is a fair target) alongside § 102/§ 103.
5. Consider the collateral-estoppel template. If your accused product maps onto limitations the Board has already held unpatentable in the '533/'484 FWDs, brief Samsung v. Netlist-style issue preclusion. Be candid that this works only where the limitations are genuinely identical or substantially identical — do not overreach, because the '523's monochromator/FTIR/lock-in limitations were not at issue in any prior FWD.
6. Do not assume the '523 is commercially dead just because it is unchallenged. The absence of IPRs is a signal that Omni has not asserted it — not that it is narrow. Before relying on scope arguments, obtain Omni's infringement contentions and elections so you know which specific claims are in play.

If no proceeding exists — which is the case here — say so plainly. The absence of PTAB activity is itself informative: a patent that is asserted repeatedly (Apple, Samsung, WHOOP) and sits in the same continuation chain as patents that were challenged six and seven times at once has still drawn zero petitions. Either it does not read on the accused wearables, or the patent owner is not relying on it. Both facts shape your damages and injunction exposure far more than any hypothetical IPR would.