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
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Carbyne, Inc. et al.vsTritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR that it says misapplied written‑description law and improperly stripped the ‘200 patent’s priority claim. The dispute centers on the meaning of “4G communication standard” and whether the parent application supports the claimed antenna language.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsFractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,031,677, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board is asked to end the review under statutory authority.
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.