Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review (PGR2024‑00030), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. request the PTAB to institute a review of all 18 claims of Oura Health Oy’s U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178, which covers a finger‑worn wearable ring device. The petitioner alleges that the claims are obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—Schröder, Niwa, Mestas, and Yuen—and that claims 11, 17, and 18 fail to meet the definiteness and dependency requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112. Samsung also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a) because the cited art was not meaningfully considered during prosecution. No institution decision has been made, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
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 Oura Health Oy et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.vsDexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Capital One, N.A. et al.vsWapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.
USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings. The joint motion and stipulation with prejudice ended the challenge to patent 10,171,433.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp.vsParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
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.