SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

PGR2025-00064

Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims of the ’299 wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00064
Judge(s)
Grace Karaffa Obermann, John F. Horvath, Sharon Fenick
Decision Date
8 May 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2020‑00175 concerning U.S. Patent 10,188,299 (the ’299 patent), Apple Inc. (listed as the petitioner in the decision) successfully demonstrated that claims 7 and 10‑14 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references—Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park—to show that each claim limitation, including the pulse‑rate increase for signal‑to‑noise improvement, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Patent Owner’s arguments that the references lacked motivation or taught fixed pulse rates were rejected, especially after expert testimony clarified that the teachings would lead a skilled artisan to vary pulse rates in response to ambient conditions. Consequently, the PTAB issued a final written decision declaring all challenged claims unpatentable.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. vs OMNI MEDSCI, INC. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01087

Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.

Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per the Board’s order.

patentIPR2025-00230

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2010 microphone patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and Fintiv factors, ignoring settled expectations and the Director’s Guidance.

patentIPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.

patentIPR2025-01565

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 8,350,763 covering multiband antennas. The challenger alleges the patent is obvious over several earlier references and seeks cancellation of all claims.

patentIPR2025-00989

Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call