Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WHOOP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`OMNI MEDSCI, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2025-01583
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 1 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Page
`I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 3
`B. Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel ..................................................................... 6
`D. Service Information ............................................................................... 8
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 8
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW ........................................ 8
`A. Standing ................................................................................................. 8
`B. Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................ 9
`1. Lisogurski .................................................................................... 9
`2. Carlson ........................................................................................ 9
`3. Walker ....................................................................................... 10
`4. Tam ........................................................................................... 10
`5. Grounds ..................................................................................... 10
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................... 11
`D. How the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`E. Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)(5) ......................... 12
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ........... 13
`VI. PATENT OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 13
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 13
`B. Background in the Relevant Art .......................................................... 14
`1. Photoplethysmography ............................................................. 14
`2. Market Trends for Wearable Sensors ....................................... 16
`C. Summary of the Alleged Invention of The ’533 Patent ...................... 22
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 2 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`D. Summary of the Prosecution History of The ’533 Patent ................... 24
`VII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 25
`A. Collateral Estoppel .............................................................................. 25
`B. Ground 1: Lisogurski in View of Carlson Renders Obvious
`Claims 11, 12, and 18 .......................................................................... 27
`1. Overview of Ground 1 .............................................................. 27
`a) Lisogurski ....................................................................... 27
`b) Carlson ............................................................................ 29
`c) Motivation to Combine ................................................... 30
`2. Analysis of Ground 1 ................................................................ 32
`a) Claim 11: “The system of claim 5, wherein the
`receiver further comprises one or more filters in
`front of one or more detectors to select a fraction
`of the one or more optical wavelengths.” ....................... 32
`
`b) Claim 12: The system of claim 5, wherein the
`output optical beam comprises a plurality of
`optical wavelengths, and the output signal is
`generated in part by comparing signals at different
`optical wavelengths. ....................................................... 41
`
`c) Claim 18: “The system of claim 13, wherein the
`receiver further comprises one or more filters in
`front of one or more detectors to select a fraction
`of the one or more optical wavelengths.” ....................... 43
`
`C. Ground 2: Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Walker Renders
`Obvious Claims 6 and 14. ................................................................... 45
`
`1. Overview of Ground 2 .............................................................. 45
`a) Walker ............................................................................. 45
`b) Motivation to Combine ................................................... 47
`2. Analysis of Ground 2 ................................................................ 48
`a) Claims 6 and 14 .............................................................. 48
`D. Ground 3: Lisogurski in view of Carlson and Tam Renders
`Obvious Claims 6 and 14. ................................................................... 50
`1. Overview of Ground 3 .............................................................. 50
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 3 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`a) Tam ................................................................................. 50
`b) Motivation to Combine ................................................... 51
`2. Analysis of Ground 3 ................................................................ 52
`a) Claims 6 and 14 .............................................................. 52
`VIII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS EXIST ........................................ 57
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58
`Claim Appendix ....................................................................................................... 59
`
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 4 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 39 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) ..................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00453, Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Apr.
`11, 2025) ............................................................................................................... 4
`Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`No. 23-1034, 2024 WL 3084509 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 21, 2024) ................................. 5
`Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................... 26, 27
`Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG,
`61 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................... 40, 49, 57
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 26
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-1229, 2022 WL 2062168 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 8, 2022) ................................... 4
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 25-1646 (Fed. Cir.) ........................................................................................ 5
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 4:19-cv-05924 (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................. 3
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., et al.,
`No. 2:24-cv-01070 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................. 4
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc.,
`No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.) ................................................................................. 3
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 2, 26
`POSCO Co., Ltd. v. ArcelorMittal,
`IPR2025-00370, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2025) ..................................... 2
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2025-01250, Paper No. 1 ................................................................................ 4
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2025-01251, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) ........................................ 5
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 5 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2025-01252, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) ........................................ 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`IPR2025-01253, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) ........................................ 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`PGR2025-00063, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) ...................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`PGR2025-00064, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) ...................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2025-00002, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2025) ......................................... 26
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 12
`Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt.,
`LLC, 778 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 26
`United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc.,
`74 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 27
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 1, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 8
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. 42.73(d)(3) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................ 7, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) ............................................................................................... 6, 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................. 13
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 6 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................................................................................... 9, 11, 12
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 7 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`v
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Exhibit
`#
`Reference Name
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`1002 File History, U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`1003 Declaration of Patrick Mercier, PhD
`1004 RESERVED
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484
`1006 Docket Sheet, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-
`00140 (D. Del.)
`1007 Docket Sheet, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., et al., No. 2:24-
`cv-01070 (E.D. Tex.)
`1008 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 39
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) (Final Written Decision, ’533 IPR)
`1009 Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1229, 2022 WL 2062168
`(Fed. Cir. Jun. 8, 2022) (summary affirmance, ’533 IPR)
`1010 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453, Patent Owner’s
`Notice of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2025)
`1011 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453, Paper No. 22
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2022) (First Final Written Decision, ’484 IPR)
`1012 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034, 2024 WL 3084509
`(Fed. Cir. Jun. 21, 2024) (First Federal Circuit Decision, ’484 IPR)
`1013 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453, Paper No. 26
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2025) (Second Final Written Decision, ’484 IPR)
`1014 Docket Sheet, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1646 (Fed.
`Cir.) (Docket Sheet, Second Federal Circuit Appeal, ’484 IPR)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 8 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`Exhibit
`#
`Reference Name
`1015 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 1
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019) (Petition, ’533 IPR)
`1016 RESERVED
`1017 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 16,
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2019) (Institution Decision, ’533 IPR)
`1018 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 23
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2020) (Patent Owner Response)
`1019 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2019-00916, Paper No. 27
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2020) (Petitioner Reply, ’533 IPR)
`1020 RESERVED
`1021 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453, Paper No. 1,
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021) (Petition, ’484 IPR)
`1022 RESERVED
`1023 Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2021-00453, Paper No. 7
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2021) (Institution Decision, ’484 IPR)
`1024 RESERVED
`1025 RESERVED
`1026 RESERVED
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 9,241,676 (Lisogurski)
`1028 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0049468 (“Carlson”)
`1029 RESERVED
`1030 RESERVED
`1031 RESERVED
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 9 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`Exhibit
`#
`Reference Name
`1032 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2012/0197093 (“Valencell-093”)
`1033 “The Biomedical Engineering Handbook,” by Joseph D. Bronzino
`(1995)
`1034 Patel, et al., A review of wearable sensors and systems with
`application rehabilitation, Journal of Neuroengineering &
`Rehabilitation (2012)
`1035 A. Omre, Bluetooth Low Energy: Wireless Connectivity for Medical
`Monitoring, Journal of Diabetes Science & Technology (Mar. 2010)
`1036 P. Baum, et al., Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health
`Systems, Phase 2: Market Developments - Remote Patient
`Monitoring and Treatment, Telecare, Fitness/Wellness and mHealth,
`JRC Scientific and Policy Reports of European Commission (2013)
`1037 M. Kranz, et al., The mobile fitness coach: Towards individualized
`skill assessment using personalized mobile devices, Pervasive and
`Mobile Computing (June 2012)
`1038 M. Swan, Senior Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable
`Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0, Journal
`of Sensor and Actuator Networks (2012)
`1039 RESERVED
`1040 “The Usage of Tablets in the HealthCare Industry,” by Rauf Adil,
`available through the Internet Archive at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20121014002306/https://www.healthcare
`itnews.com/blog/usage-tablets-healthcare-industry (last accessed
`Sept. 4, 2025)
`1041 RESERVED
`1042 Curriculum Vitae of Patrick Mercier, PhD
`1043 Docket Sheet, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-05924
`(N.D. Cal.)
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 10 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`Exhibit
`#
`Reference Name
`1044 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,867 (“Walker”)
`1045 Webster, J. G. (1997) Design of Pulse Oximeters, IOP Publishing.
`1046 U.S. Patent No. 7,029,628 (“Tam”)
`1047 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0327966 (“Fidler”)
`1048 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0267688 (“Kleppe”)
`1049 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0133691 (“Doppke”)
`1050 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01250,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (533 IPR Petition)
`1051 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01251,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (304 IPR Petition)
`1052 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01252,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (455 IPR Petition)
`1053 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01253,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (790 IPR Petition)
`1054 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., PGR2025-00064,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (790 PGR Petition)
`1055 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01254,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (475 IPR Petition)
`1056 Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., PGR2025-00063,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (475 PGR Petition)
`1057 U.S. Patent No. 10,874,304
`1058 U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455
`1059 U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 11 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`Exhibit
`#
`Reference Name
`1060 U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475
`1061 RESERVED
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 12 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533
`
`1
`I. INTRODUCTION
`WHOOP, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “WHOOP”) hereby petitions for inter partes
`review of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,533 and seek cancellation of claims 6, 11- 12, 14,
`and 18 (“the Challenged Claims”) because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103.
`The ’ 533 patent is assigned to Omni MedSci, Inc. (“Omni” or “Patent
`Owner”) and is purportedly directed to a wearable optical sensor that measures
`physiological parameters using reflected light and can be used to monitor health and
`fitness data remotely with a smartphone or tablet. But the Challenged Claims depend
`on and overlap with claims the Board has already found unpatentable in a previous
`IPR of the ’533 patent and further overlap with claims the Board found unpatentable
`in a previous IPR of a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484 (the “’484 patent”)
`(EX1005). The findings of the Board for the ’533 patent have been affirmed by the
`Federal Circuit , as have the majority of the findings for the ’484 patent . For
`example, claim 12 (challenged here) consists of nearly identical limitations to those
`already found unpatentable by the Board based on the same prior art references
`asserted below.
`Notably, in the prior IPRs, Omni did not dispute that the prior art discloses
`nearly all of the claims’ limitations, nor did Omni appeal the Board’s finding that
`there was motivation to combine the asserted prior art references (which, again,
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 13 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`significantly overlap with the prior art references in this Petition). Thus, based on
`Omni’s positions in the previous IPRs and the significant overlap of the Challenged
`Claims with the claims at issue in those IPRs, Omni has all but conceded that the
`Challenged Claims are unpatentable and is collaterally estopped from challenging
`these findings, particularly with respect to claim 12.
`Yet despite the unfavorable rulings Omni received in the related IPRs
`(including two adverse Federal Circuit decisions) and despite being “precluded from
`taking action inconsistent with [an] adverse judgment,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3),
`Omni continues to assert the ’533 Patent in district court litigation. The Board must
`prevent Omni from enforcing (and obtaining) claims that are “not patentably
`distinct” from the unpatentable claims of the ’533 and ’484 patents. Id.; see also
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. , 924 F.3d 1243,
`1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that issue preclusion prevents a patentee from
`raising arguments previously rejected for related patents).
`Instituting this Petition would be an efficient use of the Board’s limited
`resources, given the significant overlap between the Challenged Claims and the
`nearly-identical ones the Board has already found unpatentable. See POSCO Co.,
`Ltd. v. ArcelorMittal, IPR2025- 00370, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2025)
`(denying discretionary denial based on a previous, successful IPR “invalidating all
`the claims of…a parent to the challenged patent”); Papst, 924 F.3d at 1252 (“given
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 14 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`the heavy burdens [Patent Owner] placed on its adversaries, the Board, and th[e]
`court by waiting so long to abandon defense of the [previous] patent claims,” the
`patentee was “without a meaningful basis to argue for systemic efficiencies as a
`possible reason for an exception to issue preclusion”).
`Petitioner therefore respectfully requests the Board institute IPR proceedings
`and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party- in-interest is WHOOP , Inc. No unnamed entity is funding,
`controlling, or directing this Petition, or otherwise has had an opportunity to control
`or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting IPR.
`B. Related Matters
`The ’533 patent that is the subject of this IPR Petition is also the subject of
`multiple patent litigation suits brought by Patent Owner Omni MedSci, Inc.,
`including against Petitioner:
`• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-05924 (N.D. Cal.) (EX 1043)
`(the “Apple action”);
`• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. WHOOP, Inc. , No. 1:25-cv-00140 (D. Del.) (EX1006)
`(the “Delaware action”); and
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 15 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`• Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., et al. , No. 2:24-cv-01070 (E.D. Tex.)
`(EX1007) (the “Texas action”).
`The ’533 patent has already been subject to an IPR filed by Apple, where the
`Board held all challenged claims (claims 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-17) were unpatentable
`as obvious. Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. , IPR2019 -00916, Paper No. 39
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020) (EX1008) . The Board’s decision has also been affirmed
`by the Federal Circuit. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. , No. 21- 1229, 2022 WL
`2062168 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 8, 2022) (EX1009).
`Additionally, the defendants in the Texas action have recently submitted a
`Petition for IPR of the ’533 patent challenging claims 6, 11-12, 14, and 18 (the same
`set of claims as the Challenged Claims here). Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni
`MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01250, Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 20215) (EX1050).
`The ’484 patent, the child patent of the ’533 patent, is the subject of an
`ongoing IPR proceeding before the Board, where all claims have been challenged as
`obvious. See Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. , IPR2021- 00453, Patent Owner’s
`Notice of Appeal (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2025) (EX1010) (the “’484 IPR”). The Board
`initially held that claims 1, 2, 7, and 15 -23 were unpatentable as obvious, but that
`the Petitioner had not shown claims 3-6 and 8-14 to be unpatentable. Id., Paper No.
`22 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2022) (EX1011). The Petitioner appealed as to claims 3-6 and
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 16 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`8-14,1 and the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for the Board to consider
`whether those claims were unpatentable as obvious under an alternative argument.
`Apple Inc. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., No. 23-1034, 2024 WL 3084509 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 21,
`2024) (EX1012). On remand, the Board held that claims 3- 6 and 8- 14 were
`unpatentable as obvious. IPR2021 -00453, Paper No. 26 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2025)
`(EX1013). Thus, all claims of the ’484 patent have been held unpatentable by the
`Board. Omni appealed the Board’s remand decision as to claims 3- 6 and 8-14, and
`the appeal remains pending. Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. , No. 25 -1646 (Fed.
`Cir.) (EX1014).
`Finally, the defendants in the pending Texas action have recently filed several
`IPR and PGR challenges against this patent family (specifically, child patents of the
`’533 patent), which are listed below:
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01251, Paper
`No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1051) – challenging certain claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,874,304 (the “’304 patent”) (EX1057)
`
`
`1 Omni did not cross-appeal the claims held to be unpatentable (1, 2, 7, and 15-23),
`and thus, the invalidity finding from the Board on those claims is final. EX1012,
`n.2.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 17 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01252, Paper
`No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1052) – challenging certain claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,455 (the “’455 patent”) (EX1058)
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01253, Paper
`No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1053) – challenging certain claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,790 (the “’790 patent”) (EX1059)
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. , PGR2025- 00064,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1054) – challenging certain
`claims of the ’790 patent
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc., IPR2025-01254, Paper
`No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1055) – challenging certain claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,475 (the “’475 patent”) (EX1060)
`• Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. v. Omni MedSci, Inc. , PGR2025- 00063,
`Paper No. 1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2025) (EX1056) – challenging certain
`claims of the ’475 patent
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), (c), Petitioners
`provide the following designation of counsel:
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 18 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`Lead Counsel Back-up Counsel
`Jaysen S. Chung
`Reg. Number: 68,199
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
`Tel: 415-393-8271
`JSChung@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`First Back-Up Counsel
`Brian Rosenthal
`(Notice of Intent to Designate
`Provisionally Recognized PTAB
`Attorney forthcoming)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Tel: 212-351-2339
`BRosenthal@gibsondunn.com
`
`Additional Backup Counsel
`Y. Audrey Yang
`Reg. Number: 74,393
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`2001 Ross Ave., Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214-698-3215
`AYang@gibsondunn.com
`
`Petitioner respectfully provides notice that it will file a Notice of Intent to
`Designate a Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney as Back -up Counsel under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)(2) for Brian Rosenthal. Petitioner will file the Notice 21 days
`after service of this petition. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), powers of attorney
`accompany this Petition.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 19 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`D. Service Information
`Service via hand delivery or postal mail may be made at the addresses of the
`lead and back -up counsel above. Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service,
`and service at GDC-Omni-Whoop@gibsondunn.com.
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103 and 42.15(a), the required fee is being
`submitted herewith. The Office is authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or credit
`overpayment, to deposit account no. 50-1408. Any additional fees due in connection
`with this Petition may be charged to the foregoing account.
`IV. REQUIREMENTS OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’533 patent is
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred from requesting an IPR on the
`grounds identified in this Petition. Specifically, Petitioner certifies that: Petitioner
`has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of the ’533 patent; this petition is
`filed not more than one year from February 7, 2025, the date on which the Petitioner
`was served with the complaint alleging infringement of the ’533 patent; the estoppel
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and this petition is filed
`after the later of (a) the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the ’533
`patent or (b) the termination of any post-grant review of the ’533 patent.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 20 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`B. Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests the Board institute IPR
`of claims 6, 11-12, 14, and 18 of the ’533 patent under pre-AIA2 35 U.S.C. § 103 on
`the prior art references and grounds described below:
`1. Lisogurski
`U.S. Patent No. 9,241,676 (“Lisogurski”) (EX 1027) qualifies as prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e). Lisogurski was filed on May 31, 2012,
`and published on December 5, 2013. In the previous IPR proceedings for the ’533
`Patent (filed by Apple), the Board found that Lisogurski is prior art to this patent
`based on the filing date of Lisogurski , and the Federal Circuit affirmed in full that
`finding and the unpatentability of certain claims of this patent in view of
`combinations that included Lisogurski. See EX1008 at 2, 3 n.3, aff’d, EX1009.
`2. Carlson
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0049468 (“Carlson”) (EX 1028) qualifies as
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e). Carlson was filed on September
`3, 2003, and published on March 3, 2005. In the previous IPR proceedings for the
`
`
`2 Consistent with the Apple IPR for the ’533 patent, Petitioner assumes that pre-
`AIA law applies, but does not concede that the ’533 patent is entitled to a
`December 31, 2012 priority date.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 21 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`’533 Patent (filed by Apple) , the Board found certain claims of this patent
`unpatentable in view of combinations that included Carlson, and the Federal Circuit
`affirmed. EX1008,2-3, aff’d, EX1009.
`3. Walker
`U.S. Patent No. 6, 144,867 (“Walker”) (EX1044) qualifies as prior art under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), (b), and/or (e). Walker was filed on September 3, 1999, and
`issued on November 7, 2000. It therefore pre -dates references Patent Owner has
`admitted (and the Board and Federal Circuit have found) are prior art to this patent.
`4. Tam
`U.S. Patent No. 7,029,628 (“Tam”) (EX1046) qualifies as prior art under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), (b), and/or (e). Tam was filed on December 28, 2000, and issued
`on April 18, 2006. It therefore pre-dates references Patent Owner has admitted (and
`the Board and Federal Circuit have found) are prior art to this patent.
`5. Grounds
`In this IPR, Petitioner applies the above references and assert the following
`grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 22 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`Ground Claims Basis for Rejection
`1 11, 12, 18 Obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson
`2 6, 14 Obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson
`and Walker
`3 6, 14 Obvious over Lisogurski in view of Carlson
`and Tam
`C. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(3)
`In the previous IPR of the ’533 patent , Apple proposed constructions for
`certain terms , which Omni largely did not dispute and which the Board largely
`adopted.
`3 EX1008, 9- 12. The only construction that is relevant to the Challenged
`Claims in this Petition is “beam.” The Board did not construe this term in the Apple
`IPR, finding it unnecessary to resolve the issues, and the parties did not dispute that
`determination. EX1008, 9 -10; EX1017, 9; EX1018, 8-13; EX1019, 2-9. To the
`extent the Board finds it necessary to reach the construction of beam to resolve the
`issues below, “beam” should be construed to “refer to photons or light transmitted
`to a particular location in space.”
`
`
`3 If Patent Owner contends that special constructions should be used that are
`different from those adopted by the Board in the previous IPR, Petitioner may
`request leave to file a reply to such assertions.
`Petitioner WHOOP, Inc. Ex1066
`Page 23 of 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`The claim term “beam” is expressly defined in the specification to “refer to
`photons or light transmitted to a particular location in space.” EX1001, 9:28-30.
`This definition should be adopted verbatim as the patentee’s chosen lexicography.
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n , 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir.
`2007) (patentee who acts as his own lexicographer is bound by his definition). The
`definition is also consistent with other intrinsic evidence that a “beam” is
`distinguishable from “stray light from a reflection or scattering,” suggesting that a
`