In March of this year, Northern District of California Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted an Oura Health motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action filed by Samsung. Despite enforcement efforts undertaken against others in the smart ring space, the court ruled that the lack of an affirmative action directed at Samsung itself prevented the exercise of jurisdiction there. Now, Oura Health (Ouraring) has indeed sued Samsung (2:25-cv-01064), alleging in an Eastern District of Texas complaint infringement of eight patents through the provision of the "Galaxy Ring and its corresponding Applications, including the Galaxy Wearable Application and the Samsung Health Application". The new case drops on the heels of Oura Health's success before the International Trade Commission (ITC).
In its May 2024 Samsung had sought declaratory judgments of noninfringement (by the Galaxy Ring, then set to be released in the US in August 2024) of five patents: one (10,842,429) generally related to "assessing readiness of a user" for mental or physical activity using sensor data; the others (10,893,833; 11,599,147; 11,868,178; 11,868,179), to a certain wearable computer device. Ouraring now accuses Samsung of infringing the '178 patent as well as seven others of similar subject matter (12,222,759; 12,346,159; 12,346,160; 12,353,244; 12,393,227; 12,422,889; 12,429,909).
As their numbers suggest, the asserted patents belong to a large and growing family, the '909 patent issuing to Ouraring on September 30, 2025. The earliest estimated priority date for the family falls in November 2013 based on the filing of a provisional application. On March 13, 2024, Oura Health (the Finnish parent) and Ouraring (its US subsidiary) filed a complaint with the ITC over the '178 patent, together with several others dropped along the way. The investigation proceeded against respondents Circular (a French entity), RingConn (a Chinese entity), and Ultrahuman (an Indian entity), each with certain subsidiaries. The complainants claimed a domestic industry through the provision of the Oura Ring together with the Oura app in the US.
In August 2025, the Commission endorsed an April 2025 final initial determination that Oura Health had proven that a Section 337 violation had occurred as to RingConn and Ultrahuman, arising from the infringement of claims 1-2 and 12-14 of the '178 patent (which were not proven invalid). The preparation of a set of orders (exclusion and cease and desist) is underway, as is the period of presidential review. Circular settled out of the investigation in July 2024.
An Eastern District of Texas case, filed against Ultrahuman in September 2023, which also involves claims for copyright infringement, has been stayed to await the outcome of the ITC action, which Ultrahuman has appealed. In early September 2025, Ouraring hit Ultrahuman in the same district, with a set of patents that overlaps with those now in suit against Samsung. In September 2024, Ouraring sued RingConn in the District of Delaware; the next month, the suit was dismissed with prejudice.
Beyond its failed DJ complaint in the Northern District of California, in May-June 2024, Samsung filed 11 petitions for either inter partes review (IPR) or postgrant review (PGR) of Oura Health patents. January 2025 saw Samsung file one more, with RingConn filing two and Ultrahuman one. Of this lot of 15 petitions, nine failed to result in institution; six (each filed by Samsung), in trials that continue. In its new complaint, Oura touts its own success—"Oura has amassed a patent portfolio containing over a hundred patents worldwide related to the structure, design, and manufacturing of smart ring wearables and enforces its patents through licensing and/or litigation. Other smart ring manufacturers have recognized the value of Oura's intellectual property and have obtained a license from Oura in the recent past, including well-known smart ring manufacturers"—and cites to Samsung's DJ action as well as its PTAB petitions as alleged reasons for now bringing suit.
Mayer Brown LLP represents Ouraring. The suit has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. For further background concerning this smart ring litigation, see here. 10/23, Eastern District of Texas.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
