U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`FOSSIL GROUP, INC.,
`FOSSIL STORES I, INC.,
`FOSSIL PARTNERS, L.P.,
`OURA HEALTH OY, AND
`ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2025-01253
`Patent No. 12,193,790
`
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 1 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
` Page
`I.  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................... 3 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 3 
`B.  Related Matters ..................................................................................... 3 
`C.  Lead and Back-Up Counsel .................................................................. 5 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................... 6 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 7 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ........................................................................... 7 
`B.  Identification of Challenge ................................................................... 7 
`V.  ’790 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................ 8 
`A.  ’790 ....................................................................................................... 8 
`B.  Prosecution History ............................................................................ 10 
`VI.  §325(d) AND §314(a) DISCRETION DOES NOT APPLY ....................... 11 
`A.  §325(d) ............................................................................................... 11 
`B.  §314(a) ................................................................................................ 12 
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 15 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 16 
`A.  “to identify an object” limitation ([7.m]) ........................................... 17 
`B.  Additional Terms Discussed in ’484 and ’533 IPRs and District
`Courts ................................................................................................. 17 
`IX.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 18 
`A.  Collateral Estoppel Applies to the Challenged Claim ....................... 18 
`B.  Ground 1: Lisogurski (Claim 7) ......................................................... 20 
`C.  Ground 2: Lisogurski in further view of Carlson (claim 7) ............... 41 
`X.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 45 
`XI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 46 
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 2 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit No. DESCRIPTION
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (“’790”)
`1002 File History of U.S. App lication No. 18/438,144 (“’790FH”)
`1003 Declaration of Brian Anthony in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (“Anthony”)
`1004
`Declaration of Brian Anthony in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533 submitted in
`IPR2019-00916, Ex. 1003 (“’533-Anthony”)
`1005 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2019-00916, Paper 1
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019) (“’533-Pet.”)
`1006 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2019-00916, Paper 23
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2020) (“’533-POR”)
`1007 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2019-00916, Paper 16
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2019) (“’533-Inst.”)
`1008 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2019-00916, Paper 39
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) (“’533-FWD”)
`1009 Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-01229, ECF 69 (Fed.
`Cir. June 8, 2022)
`1010
`Declaration of Brian Anthony in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 submitted in
`IPR2021-00453, Ex. 1003 (“’484-Anthony”)
`1011 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 1
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021) (“’484-Pet.”)
`1012 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 10
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2021) (“’484-POR”)
`1013 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 7
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2021) (“’484-Inst.”)
`1014 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022) (“’484-Pet.-Reply”)
`1015 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 22
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2022) (“’484-FWD”)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 3 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`iii
`
`
`Exhibit No. DESCRIPTION
`1016 Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-00453, Paper 26
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2025) (“’484-RFWD”)
`1017 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-01034, ECF 44 (Fed.
`Cir. June 21, 2024)
`1018 Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2:18-cv-00134-RWS, Dkt. No.
`211 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2019)
`1019 Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2:18-cv-00429-RWS, Dkt. No.
`152 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2019)
`1020
`Second Amended Docket Control Order, June 16, 2025. Omni
`MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-
`01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`1021
`Plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims & Infringement
`Contentions, March 12, 2025. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`Tex.)
`1022 Reserved
`1023
`Defendants’ Supplemental Invalidity and Subject Matter
`Eligibility Contentions, July 18, 2025. Omni MedSci, Inc. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-
`RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`1024 File History of U.S. App lication No. 17/078,771 (“’455FH”)
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 9,241,676 (“Lisogurski”)
`1026-1027 Reserved
`1028 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0049468A1 (“Carlson”)
`1029-1030 Reserved
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 8,050,730 (“Zhang”)
`1032 Reserved
`1033 U.S. Patent Pub. No . 2011/0237911 (“Lamego”)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 4 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`iv
`
`
`Exhibit No. DESCRIPTION
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,942,749 (“Takeuchi”)
`1035 U.S. Patent No . 5,822,473 (“Magel”)
`1036 US Patent 5, 592,124 (“Mullins”)
`1037 E.F. Schubert, Light-Emitting Diodes (Cambridge Univ. Press,
`2nd ed. reprinted 2014)
`1038 Joseph D. Bronzino, The Biomedical Engineering Handbook
`(1995)
`1039 U.S. Patent No. 8,079,735 (“Vakil”)
`1040 U.S. Patent No. 8,304,805 (“Lochtefeld”)
`1041-1080 Reserved
`1081 US. Patent No. 9,651,533 (“’533”)
`1082 U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 (“’484”)
`1083 Reserved
`1084 Declaration of Jonathan Bradford
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 5 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`v
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Abbreviation DESCRIPTION
`Claim/Challenged Claim Claim 7 of the ’790
`IPR Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners
`Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`Electronics America Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil
`Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy,
`and OnePlus Technolo
`gy (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
`PO Patent Owner
`POSITA Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Board Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`EDTX Eastern District of Texas
`Texas Case Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`et al., No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`’533-IPR Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2019-
`00916 (P.T.A.B.)
`’484-IPR Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc., No. IPR2021-
`00453 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 6 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`vi
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIM
`[7.pre] An optical system, comprising:
`[7.a] a wearable device for measuring one or more physiological parameters,
`[7.b] the wearable device adapted to be placed on a wrist of a user;
`[7.c] the wearable device including a light source comprising a plurality of
`semiconductor diodes that are configured to generate an output optical light having
`one or more optical wavelengths, wherein at least a portion of the one or more optical
`wavelengths is a near-infrared wave length between 700 na nometers and 2500
`nanometers;
`[7.d] the wearable device comprising one or more lenses configured to receive
`at least a portion of the output optical light and to deliver a lens output light to tissue
`comprising skin;
`[7.e] the wearable device further comprising a detection system configured to
`receive at least a portion of the lens output light reflected from the tissue and to
`generate an output signal having a signal-to-noise ratio,
`[7.f] wherein the detection system is configured to be synchronized to the light
`source;
`[7.g] wherein the detection system comprises a plurality of detectors that are
`spatially separated from each other, and wherein at least one analog to digital
`converter is coupled to at least one of the plurality of detectors;
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 7 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`vii
`
`
`[7.h] wherein the output signal is indicative of the one or more of the
`physiological parameters;
`[7.i] the wearable device configured to in crease the signal-to-noise ratio by
`increasing light intensity of at least one of the plurality of semiconductor diodes from
`an initial light intensity; and
`[7.j] the detection system further confi gured to: generate a first signal
`responsive to light received while the semiconductor diodes are off,
`[7.k] generate a second signal responsive to light received while at least one
`of the semiconductor diodes is on, and
`[7.l] increase the signal-to-noise ratio by comparing the first signal and the
`second signal; and
`[7.m] wherein the wearable device is at least in part configured to identify an
`object.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 8 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to §§311-319 and §42.1, 1 Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`Electronics America Inc., Fossil Group, Inc. , Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners,
`L.P., Oura Health Oy, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Petitioners”)
`respectfully petition for inter partes review of claim 7 (“Claim” or “Challenged
`Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (E x.1001, “’790”). There is a reasonable
`likelihood—and it is highly likely—that th e Challenged Claim is unpatentable as
`explained herein. Petitioners request review of the Claim and judgment finding them
`unpatentable under §103.
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board already found claim limitati ons identical and/or substantially
`identical to those in Claim 7 of the ’790 unpatentable in IPR2019-00916 (’533-IPR)
`and IPR2021-00453 (’484-IPR). See generally §§IX.B-C; Anthony, ¶¶9-12, 42-43,
`68-207. Estoppel thus precludes Patent Owner Omni MedSci, Inc. (“PO” or
`“Omni”) from relitigating unpatentability of those identical or substantially identical
`limitations in the ’790. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc. ,
`IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 at 17-24 (PTAB May 15, 2025 ) (“Patent Owner is
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. (pre-AIA) or 37 C.F.R. as context indicates. All
`emphasis/annotations added unless noted. Figure annotations herein generally quote
`the Claim for reference. Citations herein are exemplary and not meant to be limiting.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 9 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2
`
`
`collaterally estopped” based on FWDs relying on the same ground to find
`“substantially similar” limitations in related patents obvious).
`Similar to the claims at issue in the ’533- and ’484-IPRs, the ’790 is generally
`directed to a physiological measurem ent system comprising a wearable
`measurement device with light sources and detectors to generate an output signal
`with physiological parameters to be transmitted to a smart phone/tablet, and
`common techniques to improve signal-to-noise ratio of such signals. ’790, 21:7-28,
`35:47-37:19, 58:24-45, 70:33-52, 79:34-40. Anthony, ¶¶40-43.
`
`’790, FIG. 24. Anthony, ¶44.
`Additional limitations in the Challenged Claim at most recite a common target
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 10 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3
`
`
`sample for physiological measurements (e.g., tissue comprising skin). See generally
`§IX.B.3. Any such additional limita tion was well-known in the art. See generally
`§§IX.B-C. Anthony, ¶¶40-43.
`Accordingly, Petitioners request that th e Board institute trial and find the
`Claim unpatentable.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co. Lt d., Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc., Fossil Group, Inc., Fossil Stores I, Inc., Fossil Partners, L.P., Oura Health Oy,
`and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. , in addition to Ouraring, Inc. and
`Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., are the real parties-in-
`interest. No other party ha d access to or control over the present Petition, and no
`other party funded or participated in preparation of the present Petition.
`B. Related Matters
`The ’790 is the subject of the following co-pending civil actions:
` Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd. et al. , 2:24-cv-
`01070-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex) (“Texas Case”); and
` Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., 1:25-cv-00140-JLH (D. Del.).
`The ’484, which is related to the ’790, is also subject to the following appeal:
`Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.).
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 11 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4
`
`
`Petitioners are concurrently filin g a petition for PGR of the ’790,
`PGR2025-00064. See Petitioners’ Ranking and Explan ation of Parallel Petitions
`accompanying this Petition.
`Petitioners are also concurrently filing petitions for IPR of the related U.S.
`Patent Nos. 9,651,533 (IPR2025-01250), 10,874,304 (IPR2025-01251), 11,160,455
`(IPR2025-01252), 12,268,475 (IPR2025-01254), and a petition for PGR of the
`related U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475 (P GR2025-00063). Petitioners are further
`concurrently filing a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent 9, 055,868 (IPR2025-01249)
`asserted in the Texas Case.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`5
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel Backup Counsel
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`Reg. No. 57,325
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`525 University Avenue, 8th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Phone: +1-650-617-4000
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`Samsung-Omni-Ropes-IPR-
`Service@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB
`correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM—Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Hyun-Joong Kim
`Reg. No. 79,936
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: +1 212-596-9000
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`Daniel.Kim@ropesgray.com
`
`Frances Zhang
`Reg. No. 73,589
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4600
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`frances.zhang@ropesgray.com
` Jasjit S. Vidwan
`Reg. No. 72,080
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Tel.: 202.263.3065
`JVidwan@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Reg. No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel.: 312.701.8641
`RPluta
`@mayerbrown.com
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 13 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`6
`
`
`Lead Counsel Backup Counsel
` Jared A. Smith
`Reg. No. 73,749
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: +1 858-678-4702
`Fax: +1 858-678-5099
`jasmith@fr.com
`
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`Reg. No. 65,190
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: +1 214-760-6150
`Fax: +1 214-747-2091
`rbonilla
`@fr.com
` Jack Shaw
`Reg. No. 72,262
`CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND
`JAMES PC
`8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105
`Dallas, Texas 75231
`Tel: 254-732-2242
`Fax: 866-627-3509
`jshaw@cjsjlaw.com
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service of documents to the email addresses
`identified above.
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by §42.15(a)
`and any additional fees that might be due to Deposit Account No. 18-1945, under
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 14 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`7
`
`
`Order No. 110797-0060-656.
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to §42.104(a), Petitioners certi fy the ’790 is available for IPR.
`Petitioners and any real parties-in-interest are not barred or estopped from requesting
`IPR challenging the Claim on the grounds id entified herein. While the ’790 issued
`less than nine months ago, PO in the Texas Case asserts that the ’790 is entitled to a
`priority date of 12/31/2012. Ex.1021, 21-22. Petitioners do not contest PO’s
`assertion of the 12/31/2021 priority da te here. Therefor e, under PO’s own
`admission, the ’790 is available for IPR under §42.102(a)(2).
`B. Identification of Challenge
`Pursuant to §§42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioners request IPR of the Claim and
`that the Board cancel the same as unpatentable.
`1. The Specific Art on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Petitioners rely upon the following art (Anthony, ¶¶68-70):
`Name Ex. Publication Filed Published/
`Issued
`Prior art
`under at
`least
`Lisogurski 1025 US 9,241,676 5/31/2012 1/26/2016 §102(e)
`Carlson 1028 US 2005/0049468 9/3/ 2003 3/3/2005 §102(b)
`
`Each of the above references is prio r art to the Claim based on 12/31/2012,
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 15 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8
`
`
`the earliest provisional application priority date listed in the ’790’s priority claim.2
`2. Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Ground Claim Basis References
`1 7
`§103
`Lisogurski
`2 7 Lisogurski in view of Carlson
`
`V. ’790 PATENT AND PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. ’790
`’790 Figure 24 shows an embodiment of the physiological measurement
`system:
`
`2 If AIA applies, these re ferences are prior art unde r §102(a)(1) and/or §102(a)(2)
`for the same reason. Petitioners take no position as to the appropriate priority date
`of the ’790.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 16 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`9
`
`
`
`’790, 35:47-37:19. Wearable measurement device 2401 with processor 2402 and
`transmitter 2403 communicates measurements to smart phone/tablet 2405. ’790,
`35:47-67. Anthony, ¶44.
`Wearable device 2401 can be placed on a user’s body and includes
`semiconductor sources that generate an output optical light with a plurality of optical
`wavelengths, and a driver for the same. ’790, 8:35-45. Wearable device 2401
`further comprises lenses to receive and direct light from the semiconductor sources
`to the user’s tissue, and a detection system that receives the light reflected from the
`tissue and to generate an output signal having a signal-to-noise ratio. ’790, 8:45-52.
`The detection system comprises spatially se parated detectors. ’790, 8:52-56. The
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`10
`
`
`’790 patent describes several common techniques to impr ove signal processing to
`select the constituents of interest, in cluding using increased light intensity,
`modulation, lock-in, and dark subtracti on techniques. ’790, 21:7-28, 58:24-45,
`70:33-52, 79:34-40. Anthony, ¶¶45-46
`B. Prosecution History
`The ’790 issued from U.S. Pat. App. 18/438,144, filed 2/9/2024. Following
`an interview with the Examiner, the Applicant filed a terminal disclaimer in view of
`several patents in the same family including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,896,346, 9,494,567,
`9,993,159, 10,441,176, 11,564,577, 9,500,635, 9,164,032, 9,500,634. ’790FH, 263-
`265, 271. The pending claims were then allowed without any amendments or Office
`Actions. ’790FH, 301. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner noted that the
`prior art does not disclose or render obvious “detection system…synchronized to the
`light source,” “detection system comprise s a plurality of detectors…spatially
`separated,” “analog to digital converter…coupled to…detectors,” “output signal is
`indicative of…physiological parameters,” “increase the signal-to-noise ratio by
`increasing light intensity,” and the detection system further configured to: “generate
`a first signal responsive to light receive d while the semiconduc tor diodes are off,”
`“generate a second signal res ponsive to light received while at least one of the
`semiconductor diodes is on,” “increase the signal-to-noise ratio by comparing the
`first signal and the second signal;” and “wearable device…configured to identify an
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 18 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`11
`
`
`object.” ’790FH, 307. For the reasons set forth below, Lisogurski alone or in view
`of Carlson discloses these limitations. See §§IX.B-C. Anthony, ¶¶47-50.
`VI. §325(D) AND §314(A) DISCRETION DOES NOT APPLY
`A. §325(d)
`Under the Advanced Bionics framework, there is no basis for discretionary
`denial under §325(d) as the grounds raised by this Petition are not the same or
`substantially the same as the art and ar guments raised during prosecution of
`the ’790 patent. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, at 8 (PTAB, Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).
`The grounds raised by this Petition are not the same or substantially same
`as the art and arguments ra ised during prosecution. Id. The Examiner did not
`consider the references relie d upon in this Petition. Although Lisogurski and
`Carlson were cited in an IDS during the examination of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455
`(“’455”) to which ’790 claims priority, and while ’484 -Anthony, ’484-Pet.,
`’533-Anthony, ’533-Pet., and ’533-FWD were also cited in an IDS during
`examination of ’455, none of them was cited during prosecution of the ’790.
`Ex.1024, 279, 310, 350, 365, 371, 416. Indeed, while the ’484-FWD (8/3/2022) was
`rendered prior to the issuance of the ’790 (1/14/2025), it was not cited in an IDS in
`the ’790 or any of the applications to which the ’790 claims priority.
`Even if the art and arguments were substantially the same, the Examiner
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 19 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`12
`
`
`erred in a manner material to the patentability of the Claim. Where the
`“Examiner did not expressly consider” Lisogurski and Carlson, it is difficult, if not
`impossible to explain “why the Examiner allowed the claims” or “how the Examiner
`might have considered the argumen ts presented in the Petition.” Bowtech, Inc. v.
`MCP IP, LLC , IPR2019-00379, Paper 14, at 20 (PTAB July 3, 2019). If the
`Examiner had considered subs tantially the same art or arguments, it was error to
`allow Claim 7 because, e.g., the Examiner failed to reject Claim 7 over references
`or combinations of references teaching each of the limitation that the Examiner
`found not disclosed in the prior art (§V.B). See §§IX.B-C. Indeed, the Board in the
`’484-IPR and ’533-IPR already found unpa tentable limitations identical or
`substantially identical to t hose in the Claim based on Lisogurski and Carlson, as
`applied herein ( see §§IX.B-C (citing prior FWDs)). It was material error for the
`Examiner to fail to apply the same grounds during prosecution. Anthony, ¶¶47-50.
`The Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
`B. §314(a)
`The Texas Case also does not warrant exercising discretion under §314(a).
`Factor 1 weighs in favor of institution. Petitioners intend to seek a stay of the
`Texas Case pending the outcome of this IPR, along with other IPRs related to the
`litigation dispute. At the time of instituti on, it is highly unlikely that the Court will
`have conducted a Markman hearing, which is currently scheduled for 2/13/2026.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 20 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`13
`
`
`Ex.1020, 4. The EDTX has routinely granted stays prior to claim construction, since
`cases have “not reached such an advanced stage that it would weigh against a stay.”
`Broadphone LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:23-CV-00001-JRG-RSP, 2024 WL
`3524022, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. July 24, 2024).
`While Factors 2 and 3 are neutral or at most weigh slightly against institution,
`they deserve little weight given Petitioners’ diligence in preparing and filing this
`Petition.
`Factor 4 weighs strongly in favor of institution. Petitioners hereby stipulate
`that, if the PTAB institutes this proceeding, Petitioners will not pursue in Texas Case
`(1) the specific grounds asserted in this proceeding or any ground that was raised or
`could have been raised in an IPR proceed ing against the Challenged Claim; or (2)
`combinations of the prior art asserted in this proceeding with any other type of prior
`art against the Challenged Claim.
`Factor 5 is neutral or weighs at most only slightly against institution. While
`Petitioners and PO are the sa me parties in the Texas Case, institution and a public
`trial record of the important invalidity grounds in the Petition will reduce issues for
`the public, including all parties besides Petiti oners who currently are or may in the
`future be subject to litigation involving the ’790.
`Factor 6 weighs strongly in favor of institution. The ’790 issued in 2025 and
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 21 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`14
`
`
`was not asserted prior to the Texa s Case—PO has not developed settled
`expectations. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. et al. v. MES, Inc., IPR2025-00274,
`Paper 23 at 3 (PTAB July 2, 2025); Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC , IPR2025-00327,
`Paper 12 at 2-3 (PTAB June 26, 2025). Furt her, the Petition is strong and presents
`compelling unpatentability arguments that were overlooked during prosecution. See
`§§IX.B-C. Indeed, in prior ’533- and ’484-IPRs, the Board already rejected identical
`or substantially identical claims to the ’790 based on Lisogurski and Carlson as
`applied herein. See Posco Co., Ltd. v. Arcelormittal, IPR2025-00370, Paper 10 at 3
`(PTAB June 25, 2025) (“The fact that th e Board previously determined related
`claims to be unpatentable—prior to the i ssuance of the challenged claims in this
`proceeding—tips the balance against discretionary denial.”); Tesla, Inc., v.
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC , IPR2025-00217, Pape r 9 at 2 (PTAB June 13, 2025)
`(“Other considerations, however, counsel against discretionary denial. For example,
`Petitioner…asserts that the merits are strong because the Board previously
`determined there was a reasonable likelihoo d that similar claims of an ancestor
`patent were unpatentable in three separate proceedings with respect to some of the
`challenged patents in these proceedings.”).
`Indeed, the Board is uniquely positioned to address the issue of collateral
`estoppel based on the ’533- and ’484-IPRs. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. ,
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 22 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`15
`
`
`116 F.4th 1345, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“[A ] finding underlying an unpatentability
`decision in an IPR proceeding [does not] collaterally estop[] a patentee from making
`validity arguments regarding separate, related claims in district court litigation….”);
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 at 17-24 (PTAB
`May 15, 2025) (“Patent Owner is collaterally estopped” as to obviousness of all
`challenged claims, based on FWDs relying on the same ground to find “substantially
`similar” limitations in related patents obvious); see also §IX.A.
`Accordingly, the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution.
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`For the purposes of this Petition only, Petitioners do not contest the PO’s
`assertion that the Claim is entitled to the earliest claimed priority date of 12/31/2012.
`§IV.A.
`As the Board concluded and PO did not dispute in the ’533-/’484-IPRs, on or
`before the claimed priority date of 12/31/2012, a POSITA “would have [had] a good
`working knowledge of optical sensing t echniques and their applications, and
`familiarity with optical design and signal processing techniques.” ’533-FWD, 8-9;
`see also ’484-Inst., 7-8; ’484-FWD, 11 n.7. Such a person would have obtained such
`knowledge through “an undergraduate edu cation in engineering (electrical,
`mechanical, biomedical, or optical) or a re lated field of study, along with relevant
`experience studying or developing physiological monitoring devices…in industry or
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 23 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`16
`
`
`academia.” ’533-FWD, 8-9; see also ’484-Inst., 7-8; ’484-FWD, 11 n.7. Anthony,
`¶¶51-54.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claim terms subject to IPR are to be construed according to the Phillips
`standard applied in district court. §42.100(b). Only te rms necessary to resolve the
`controversy must be construe d. Because the prior art asserted herein discloses
`embodiments within the Claim’s indisputable scope, the Board need not construe the
`Claim’s outer bounds.3 Other than noted here, all claim terms should be construed
`according to their plain and ordinary meaning as they would have been understood
`by a POSITA. Anthony, ¶¶55-67.
`In prior Board or district court proceed ings involving patents related to the
`’790, certain terms identical to or substantially similar to language in the Claim were
`construed, as detailed below. Though Petiti oners do not believe that those terms
`need to be construed here, the prior art discloses and renders obvious those terms,
`including under those prior constructions, as discussed in §§IX.A-B, infra. Anthony,
`
`3 In the Texas Case, Defendants identifi ed certain limitations of the ’790 as
`potentially indefinite. Ex. 1023, 243-244. Regardless of the outer bounds of these
`limitations, the prior art discloses and renders obvious embodiments within the
`indisputable scope of these limitations. Anthony, ¶¶66-67.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 24 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`17
`
`
`¶¶55-65.
`A. “to identify an object” limitation ([7.m])
`In the ’484-FWD, the Board construed “t o identify an object” to mean “to
`recognize or establish an object as bein g a particular thing,” which the Federal
`Circuit affirmed on appeal. ’484-FWD, 8-10; ’484-RFWD, 3. Anthony, ¶56.
`B. Additional Terms Discussed in ’484 and ’533 IPRs and
`District Courts
`In the ’484-IPR, the petitioner propo sed construing “optical light” and
`informed the Board of its proposed construction for “lens” in a parallel district court
`case, Omni did not propose constructions for these terms, and the Board did not
`construe them. ’484-Pet., 20; ’484-Inst., 9-10; ’484-FWD, 7-8. In the ’533-IPR, the
`petitioner proposed construing “plurality of lenses,” wh ich the Board declined to
`construe. ’533-Pet., 19-20; ’533-FWD, 9-10. The Board in ’533- and ’484-IPRs did
`not construe any other claim present in the ’790. Anthony, ¶¶57-63.
`Prior to the Board’s ’533-FWD, in two Eastern District of Texas cases
`involving related patents to the ’790, including the ’533, the district court determined
`that the term “lenses” should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning without the
`need for further construction.” Ex.1018, 10-13 (construing “plurality of lenses” in
`claims 5 and 13 of the ’533); Ex.1019, 12-15 (construing “lens” and “one or more
`lenses” in related patents). Anthony, ¶¶64-65.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1053
`Page 25 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petitio