DCT

2:25-cv-00928

Ouraring Inc v. Ultrahuman Healthcare LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00928, E.D. Tex., 09/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant SVTronics resides and maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas. Venue is alleged against Defendant Ultrahuman based on its business partnership and control over SVTronics, through which it allegedly makes, uses, and sells infringing products at a shared "Plano Facility" within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Ultrahuman Ring AIR smart ring infringes five U.S. patents related to the mechanical structure, internal component layout, and biometric sensing capabilities of wearable computing devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves wearable smart rings designed for non-invasive, long-term monitoring of a user's physiological data, a rapidly growing segment of the consumer health and wellness market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a significant litigation history between the parties, including a prior patent and copyright suit filed by Plaintiff in the same district (Ultrahuman I), "nuisance lawsuits" filed by Defendant in India, and a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that resulted in a finding that Defendants' products infringed a related Oura patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-11-29 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-01-01 Oura Gen 1 Ring Launch
2022-07-01 Ultrahuman Ring Product Launch
2023-09-01 Complaint Filing in Ultrahuman I
2024-01-04 Ultrahuman Lawsuit Filing in India
2024-03-13 Oura ITC Complaint Filing
2025-02-11 ’759 Patent Issued
2025-08-19 ’228 Patent Issued
2025-08-19 ’229 Patent Issued
2025-08-21 ITC Final Determination Date
2025-08-26 ’530 Patent Issued
2025-08-26 ’531 Patent Issued
2025-09-03 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,393,228 - "Wearable Computing Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,393,228, titled "Wearable Computing Device," issued on August 19, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that many wearable electronics are bulky, intrusive, or otherwise uncomfortable for a user to wear for extended periods, which limits their utility for continuous monitoring (Compl. ¶1; ’228 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable computing device in a ring form factor, which allows for prolonged and comfortable wear. It achieves this by arranging key components—such as a curved battery, a flexible printed circuit board (PCB), and various sensors—within a housing composed of distinct internal and external parts that enclose and protect the electronics (’228 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:62-10:4). An exploded view in Figure 4 of the patent illustrates the assembly of a flexible circuit (415) and battery (480) within a two-part housing (412) (’228 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a method for miniaturizing complex biometric sensing systems into a small, durable, and unobtrusive form factor suitable for continuous, multi-day health tracking (Compl. ¶1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • A wearable ring device configured to be worn on a finger.
    • A housing comprising an external housing and an internal housing coupled together.
    • A curved battery configured to fit within a curved portion of the housing.
    • A printed circuit board.
    • One or more components, including an accelerometer/gyroscope, a temperature sensor, a first LED (visible light), a second LED (infrared/near-infrared), and one or more light sensors.
    • One or more processors configured to process data from the components to support measurement of blood oxygenation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,393,229 - "Wearable Computing Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,393,229, titled "Wearable Computing Device," issued on August 19, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technical problem is identical to that described for the ’228 Patent: the need for a wearable device that can be worn comfortably for extended periods to take measurements and perform various functions (’229 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a wearable ring device where an external housing and an internal housing form a complete housing structure that encloses a curved battery, PCB, and sensors (’229 Patent, col. 45:3-14). The solution is structurally and functionally similar to that of the ’228 Patent, focusing on the assembly of components within a two-part ring structure (’229 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technology also addresses the miniaturization of biometric sensors into a discreet form factor for continuous health monitoring (Compl. ¶57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A wearable ring device configured to be worn on a finger.
    • A housing comprising an external housing and an internal housing.
    • A curved battery, a printed circuit board, one or more components, and one or more processors enclosed by the housing.
    • The one or more components including an accelerometer, a temperature sensor, a first LED (visible light), a second LED (infrared/near-infrared), and one or more light sensors.
    • The one or more processors configured to process data from the components to measure blood oxygenation level.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,399,530 - "Wearable Computing Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,399,530, titled "Wearable Computing Device," issued on August 26, 2025 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a finger-worn wearable ring device. It differs from the ’228 and ’229 patents by specifically claiming an "internal potting" that at least partially fills the internal space of the external housing, rather than a distinct "internal housing" component (Compl. ¶77). The claimed potting encloses a curved battery, PCB, and various sensors, including LEDs that emit light through the potting to measure heart rate and blood oxygenation (Compl. ¶77).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "inner coated with medical-grade epoxy resin" of the Ultrahuman Ring AIR constitutes the claimed "internal potting" (Compl. ¶¶52, 80).

U.S. Patent No. 12,399,531 - "Wearable Computing Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,399,531, titled "Wearable Computing Device," issued on August 26, 2025 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology of this patent is substantially similar to the ’530 Patent. It claims a wearable ring device comprising an external housing and an "internal potting" that adheres to the external housing and together encloses a curved battery, PCB, and other components (Compl. ¶96). It also specifies that a first LED emits visible light and a second LED emits infrared or near-infrared light through the potting toward the user (Compl. ¶96).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The infringement theory is consistent with that for the ’530 Patent, identifying the epoxy resin layer of the accused product as the claimed "internal potting" (Compl. ¶99).

U.S. Patent No. 12,222,759 - "Wearable Computing Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,222,759, titled "Wearable Computing Device," issued on February 11, 2025 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a finger-worn wearable ring device comprising a housing, a curved battery, a PCB, and a "plurality of sensors" for monitoring physical activity, sleep, or health (Compl. ¶¶114-115). The claims also require one or more light-emitting components, one or more light-receiving components, and a "communication module" for transmitting sensor data to a user device (Compl. ¶115).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused product's various sensors (six-axis motion sensor, temperature sensor, PPG sensor) meet the "plurality of sensors" limitation, while its Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE5) functionality constitutes the claimed "communication module" (Compl. ¶¶92, 118).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the Ultrahuman Ring AIR and other Ultrahuman devices with finger-worn wearable ring functionality (Compl. ¶¶41, 60).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Ultrahuman Ring AIR is a smart ring designed to be worn on a user's finger to monitor and provide biometric data, including skin temperature, blood oxygenation, heart rate, and physical movement (Compl. ¶¶42, 61). The complaint alleges the device is constructed with an outer shell of titanium reinforced with tungsten carbide carbon coating and an inner liner of medical-grade epoxy resin (Compl. ¶¶42, 61). Its internal components include a six-axis motion sensor, a temperature sensor, red, green, and infrared LEDs, and an Infrared Photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (Compl. ¶¶42, 61). An image from Ultrahuman's website highlights the device's internal components, describing it as "Beautiful from the inside" (Compl. p. 17). The complaint positions the product as a "copycat" of Plaintiff's Oura Ring, launched years after Oura established the market (Compl. ¶¶5, 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’228 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing, comprising: an external housing...; and an internal housing... The accused product includes an outer shell of titanium and an inner coated with medical-grade epoxy resin, which are alleged to be the external and internal housings, respectively. ¶42 col. 45:5-14
a curved battery... configured to fit within a curved portion of the housing The accused product contains a curved battery that fits within the curved ring structure. ¶42 col. 45:15-18
a printed circuit board The accused product includes a printed circuit board. ¶42 col. 45:19
one or more components... comprising: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or both...; a temperature sensor...; a first light emitting diode (LED)...; a second LED...; and one or more light sensors The accused product includes a six-axis motion sensor, a temperature sensor, red LEDs, green LEDs, Infrared LEDs, and an Infrared PPG sensor that are alleged to meet these limitations. ¶42 col. 45:22-31
one or more processors... configured to... analyze the one or more of the visible light, the infrared light, or the near-infrared light... to support measurement of a blood oxygenation level The accused product's processors are alleged to process data from the components to analyze light absorption and measure blood oxygenation. A marketing image shows the product's PPG sensor, which relates to this function (Compl. p. 18). ¶42 col. 45:32-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's "inner coated with medical-grade epoxy resin" (Compl. ¶42) constitutes an "internal housing" as required by the claim, or if Defendants will argue it is merely a potting material or coating that is not a distinct housing component. The claim requires the housings to be "coupled together," the nature of which will be a focus of construction.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's combination of multiple LEDs and a PPG sensor satisfies the specific claim requirements for a "first LED," a "second LED," and "one or more light sensors"? The mapping between the accused components and these distinct claim elements may be a point of dispute.

’229 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing comprising an external housing... and an internal housing... wherein the external housing and internal housing form a housing The product has a titanium outer shell ("external housing") and an epoxy resin inner liner ("internal housing"), which together are alleged to form the device's housing. A marketing image describes this liner as a "hypoallergenic smooth inner shell" (Compl. p. 19). ¶61 col. 45:48-52
a curved battery... enclosed by the housing The accused product's housing is alleged to enclose a curved battery. ¶61 col. 46:1-2
a printed circuit board... enclosed by the housing The accused product's housing is alleged to enclose a printed circuit board. ¶61 col. 46:3-4
one or more components... enclosed by the housing... comprising... an accelerometer... a temperature sensor... a first light emitting diode (LED)... a second LED... and one or more light sensors The accused product's housing is alleged to enclose a six-axis motion sensor, a temperature sensor, various LEDs, and a PPG sensor. ¶61 col. 46:5-13
one or more processors... configured to... analyze the... light to identify wavelengths... to measure a blood oxygenation level of the user The accused product contains processors that allegedly perform this analysis to determine blood oxygenation. ¶61 col. 46:14-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Similar to the ’228 Patent, the analysis may turn on whether the epoxy resin layer is an "internal housing." Claim 1 adds the requirement that the external and internal housings "form a housing," which raises the question of whether two distinct structural components are required or if a shell-and-coating construction meets this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's mapping of the accused product's sensor suite to the claimed limitations of a "first LED," "second LED," and "light sensors" will likely be contested, raising questions about the specific function and identity of each component.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’228 Patent

  • The Term: "internal housing"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused product uses an "inner coated with medical-grade epoxy resin" (Compl. ¶42). Defendants may argue this epoxy layer is a potting material or coating, not a structural "housing," potentially avoiding infringement of claims requiring two distinct housing components.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes an alternative embodiment comprising an "internal housing portion configured to seal" the components, which may be a "substantially transparent internal potting" (’228 Patent, col. 2:44-46). This language may support construing "internal housing" to encompass a structural potting or epoxy layer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures such as 8 and 12E depict the "inner ring" or "internal housing" (1212) as a distinct, pre-formed structural component separate from any potting material (’228 Patent, Figs. 8, 12E). This may support a narrower construction requiring a discrete structural element.

For the ’229 Patent

  • The Term: "wherein the external housing and internal housing form a housing"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the relationship between the two housing components. The interpretation will determine whether a shell-and-coating construction (as allegedly used in the accused product) can meet the claim, or if two separate, pre-formed structural shells are required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's Summary of the Invention describes a device with an "internal housing portion" and an "external housing portion configured to seal the... components in an internal space" (’229 Patent, col. 2:15-22). This focus on the sealing function could support an interpretation where a shell and an epoxy layer "form a housing" by creating a sealed enclosure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites three distinct nouns: an "external housing," an "internal housing," and a "housing." An argument may be made that this implies three distinct structures, or at least that the first two are separate structural elements that are combined to create the third, which would not describe a single shell with an internal coating.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide user guides, websites, and advertising that instruct customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner, such as by wearing the ring to track biometric data (Compl. ¶¶46-47, 65-66). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are a material part of the patented inventions and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶49-50, 68-69).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have willfully infringed since at least the filing of the complaint, establishing post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶52, 71). The complaint also extensively details pre-suit interactions, including prior litigation and an ITC proceeding, which may be used to argue for pre-suit knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶¶8-12).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "internal housing," as claimed in the ’228 and ’229 patents, be construed to cover the accused product’s internal epoxy resin layer? Similarly, for the ’530 and ’531 patents, does that same layer meet the definition of "internal potting"? The outcome of claim construction on these structural terms may be dispositive for a significant portion of the case.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of component mapping: does the accused product's integrated PPG sensor and array of LEDs perform the distinct functions of the claimed "first LED," "second LED," and "one or more light sensors," or is there a technical mismatch between the claimed elements and the actual operation of the accused device?
  • A central legal question will concern intent: given the extensive litigation history detailed in the complaint, including a prior adverse finding from the ITC, what level of knowledge and intent can Plaintiff establish? This will be critical not only for the willfulness claim but also for proving the specific intent required for induced infringement.