Context:
- Consumer electronics giant Samsung Electronics knew that litigation with smart-ring pionner Oura (which also operates under the Ouraring company name) was inevitable and brought a complaint for declaratory judgment (DJ), which Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California threw out (March 27, 2025 ip fray article).
- Last month, a new wave of Oura patent enforcement actions became discoverable (November 18, 2025 ip fray article), and Oura named Samsung as one of the respondents to its complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) over the same set of patents (November 19, 2025 Oura press release), thereby proving Samsung’s apprehensions right.
- A couple of days ago, Oura proudly mentioned the successful defense of one of its most foundational patents (if not the single most important one) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) (December 1, 2025 ip fray article).
What’s new: In what could become Samsung Electronics’s most acrimonious patent dispute since the patent spat started by Apple that ran almost eight years, Samsung has countersued Oura.
Let’s now talk about the strategic situation on this legal chess board, including what may come next:
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
One aspect of the defensive approach mentioned in the Wider ramifications section is that Samsung typically tries to avoid the impression of trying to overpower another party by asserting a much larger number of patents. Instead, Samsung’s filing strategy is a “tit-for-tat” aiming for superficial symmetry, sometimes (such as against Huawei) asserting the exact same number of patents in its countersuits as the other party.
These are Samsung’s six patents-in-suit, which aren’t all homegrown:
- U.S. Patent No. 7,662,065 (“Method and apparatus to provide daily goals in accordance with historical data”); this patent was originally obtained by DP technologies and the first-named inventor is one of the tech industry’s living legends: Philippe Kahn (Wikipedia entry), the founder of Borland (TurboPascal)
- U.S. Patent No. 9,008,973 (“Wearable sensor system with gesture recognition for measuring physical performance”); the application was originally filed by an individual named Barry French, suggesting that Samsung also acquired this one
- U.S. Patent No. 12,260,672 (“Wearable electronic device for obtaining biometric information”); this one and the remaining ones are original Samsung patents
- U.S. Patent No. 12,279,849 (“Method for performing wireless communication by using biosensor and electronic device therefor”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,324,655 (“Method for measuring biological signal and wearable electronic device for the same”)
- U.S. Patent No. 12,383,152 (“Electronic device including multiple optical sensors and method for controlling the same”)
Counsel
Oura’s ITC complaint against Samsung et al.
Oura is being represented by a team at Mayer Brown: Jasjit S. Vidwan, James A. Fussell, III, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Bryan C. Nese, Michael L. Lindinger, Tiffany A. Miller, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Amanda E. Stephenson, Seth W. Bruneel, Courtney Krawice, Séké Godo, Paul Choi, So Ra Ko, Andrew Huntsinger, and Robert G. Pluta.
Samsung’s E.D. Tex. complaint against Oura
Samsung is being represented by Gillam & Smith‘s Melissa R. Smith, as well as a team at O’Melveny & Myers LLP: Ryan K. Yagura, Marc Pensabene, Laura B. Gore, Nathaniel Legum, Mark Liang, Bill Trac, and Eric T. Ong.