{"id":49629,"date":"2025-05-07T21:55:30","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T16:25:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.ultrahuman.com\/blog\/?p=49629"},"modified":"2025-05-08T20:47:43","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T15:17:43","slug":"so-whats-the-patent-that-oura-is-suing-everyone-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.ultrahuman.com\/blog\/so-whats-the-patent-that-oura-is-suing-everyone-for\/","title":{"rendered":"So what\u2019s the patent that Oura is suing everyone for?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
You might have come across news about a legal case involving Oura and several smart ring companies \u2014 including us at Ultrahuman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s easy to assume that this is the classic tale of a lone innovator protecting a breakthrough while new entrants simply imitate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But here\u2019s the twist: the patent at the center of Oura\u2019s International Trade Commission (ITC) case\u2014US 11,868,178<\/strong>\u2014was only issued on 9 January 2024<\/strong>, based on an application filed on 24 May, 2023<\/strong>. Just 63 days after the patent issued, on 13 March 2024, Oura filed its ITC complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-1398)<\/strong> against nearly every smart-ring competitor, including Ultrahuman. And what\u2019s more, this is not a \u201chome-grown\u201d Oura patent – Oura acquired the patent family from another company in 2023 (Proxy), who themselves acquired it from yet another company in 2020 (Motiv). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let all that sink in\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This isn\u2019t a dispute over years of secret R&D. It\u2019s about a very recent patent purchase now being wielded to limit the choices ring-wearers like you have, including the choice to use the leading no-subscription<\/strong> health-monitoring ring on the market. To some extent, it\u2019s natural for the incumbents to panic when a new player is able to deliver a superior product, charge less for it, and not lock customers into a never-ending subscription payments.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, let\u2019s look at the Motiv \/ Proxy patent that Oura purchased and then sued us for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What does the \u2019178 patent actually cover?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The \u2019178 patent claims a combination of generic elements that have been in the public domain for years. Specifically, the claims recite a specific, but basic, arrangement of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
internal and external \u201chousing components,\u201d <\/li>\n\n\n\n
a cavity formed between those two \u201chousing components,\u201d and <\/li>\n\n\n\n
electrical components\u2014a battery and printed circuit board or PCB\u2014positioned between the two \u201chousing components\u201d with the battery being \u201cshape[d] and size[d]\u201d to fit within the cavity. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Together, the patent claims the combination<\/strong> of these off-the-shelf ideas inside a ring form factor.. Is this inventive enough? That\u2019s for you to decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A quick reality-check on \u201cwho invented what\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Smart rings that monitor a person\u2019s health have been known since the 1990s.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
There were many finger-worn rings that included housing components, batteries, printed circuit boards, sensors, and LEDs, all of which are basic components that have been used long before November of 2013 (the earliest possible priority date for the \u2019178 patent).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
For example, curved batteries were well known in the art prior to November 2013, such that curved batteries of the size and shape that would fit within a ring were commercially available from various vendors, including Grepow<\/strong>. In other words, none of those building blocks originated with Oura or its proxy company. The \u2019178 patent is about bundling<\/strong> well-known parts into a ring and calling that bundle proprietary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why would the Patent Office allow the \u2019178 Patent to issue if it doesn\u2019t claim anything new? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
No system is perfect, and not every patent issued by the PTO ends up being valid. In fact, the Patent Office has a special Patent Trial and Appeal Board (\u201cPTAB\u201d) dedicated to reviewing challenges to the validity of issued patents \u2013 and PTAB<\/strong> is currently reviewing the validity of the \u2019178 patent in a post-grant review proceeding that was instituted on December 6, 2024<\/strong> (PGR2024-00030). In fact, the PTAB has already determined that it was more likely than not that the claims of the \u2019178 Patent are invalid as \u201cobvious\u201d <\/strong>based on an existing patent (US 10,303,867 B2). While the PTAB\u2019s final decision on post-grant review will not come out until later this year, in general over 70% of such proceedings result in invalidation of all challenged claims<\/strong>.\u00b9<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultrahuman\u2019s mission<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Our mission from Day 1 has been to deliver more value to you: to provide innovative and useful features without a predatory and mandatory fee. Here are just some of the features* that we launched, that you liked, and that Oura ended up launching right after we did:<\/p>\n\n\n\n