Short Summary
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
Detailed Summary
In a Petition for Post‑Grant Review (PGR2026‑00003), WHOOP, Inc. challenges claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790, which covers a wearable optical device for measuring physiological parameters. The petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the Lisogurski reference when combined with Carlson, and similarly over Lisogurski with Carlson and either Lamego or Soller. Additional grounds include indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112, and the petitioner argues that Omni MedSci is collaterally estopped from re‑litigating limitations already found unpatentable in earlier IPRs of related ’533 and ’484 patents. WHOOP requests that the PTAB institute the PGR and cancel the challenged claim.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in WHOOP, Inc. vs Omni MedSci, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tommy John, Inc.vsPakage Apparel, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAnonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01251, allowing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. to challenge OMNI MEDSCI, INC.'s patent 10874304.
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.
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.