Wearable electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
17 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 17 total
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 25 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’599 patent covering wireless audio eyeglasses, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and lack a valid priority date.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
RingConn, LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to invoke discretionary denial provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Oura’s wearable smart‑ring patent, arguing obviousness over Sun and Kruse references and indefiniteness of claim 6. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under the FINTIV provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging Oura Health's U.S. Patent No. 10,281,953, asserting that the biometric sensing claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petition relies heavily on combining references like Mestas and Schröder to demonstrate lack of inventive step. Samsung also argues against any discretionary denial of institution.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing challenged Hangzhou ZH Tech's patent (11736855) in PGR, alleging obviousness and indefiniteness across 19 claims. The Board instituted the petition, finding a likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable based on prior art combinations.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin and patent owner Slyde Analytics settled their dispute in IPR2024-00006, resulting in Garmin's termination from the proceeding. The Board treated the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.