Following the ITC, the Delhi High Court issued its decision regarding the patent conflict.
What you need to know
– The Delhi High Court in India has rendered its decision, rejecting the lawsuit Ultrahuman filed against Oura concerning its patent conflict.
– This marks the progression of the situation after the ITC’s ruling in August, which barred Ultrahuman’s devices and components from the U.S. marketplace.
– Initially, Ultrahuman pursued Oura for this legal action due to the latter’s features closely resembling its own.
Additional details have emerged about the ongoing litigation between Ultrahuman and Oura, but it appears this might be the conclusion—for now.
This afternoon (Sep 2), Oura reached out to Android Central concerning its ongoing litigation with Ultrahuman, as the latter took legal action against the former over “patent allegations.” Oura wanted to notify us that Ultrahuman’s lawsuit against them “has been dismissed” by the Delhi High Court in India.
Oura states, “Ultrahuman’s failure to disclose the US ITC’s initial and final rulings, which were significant to its complaint, was determined to be intentional and deliberate by the Delhi High Court.”
This brings us back to an update shared through an Oura statement regarding Ultrahuman’s case against it. The statement addressed the ITC’s decision against Ultrahuman, which prohibited the company’s smart rings and components “from the U.S. market through exclusion and cease-and-desist orders.” The ITC’s original ruling also indicated that Ultrahuman “violated” Oura’s intellectual property, according to the company’s statement.
The Smart Ring Rivalry
On August 22, news emerged that Ultrahuman had initiated a lawsuit against Oura, accusing the brand’s Ring 4 of “copying” its patented smart ring technology. The suit was filed in the Delhi High Court in India. Ultrahuman contended that its rival, Oura, was encroaching uncomfortably close with its smart ring features, such as “women’s health tracking, glucose monitoring, and unrestricted data features without authorization.”
At that time, an Ultrahuman spokesperson stated that the company had “no choice but to defend its innovation.” Besides the “sleep, recovery, and circadian health” insights mentioned, Ultrahuman highlighted another significant difference between both brands: the approach to paywalled versus non-paywalled content.
The lawsuit presented to the Delhi High Court was Ultrahuman’s attempt to “defend” a particular patent and maintain its position at the forefront of open health data. However, regarding Oura’s paywalled content, it argued that locking “them behind a paywall is anti-innovation and anti-consumer.”
