what you should Know
- Samsung is suing Oura in US District Court to prevent any patent claims against the Samsung Galaxy Ring.
- Oura has already sued Circular, RingConn and Ultrahuman for patent infringement and holds over 100 smart ring patents.
- Samsung claims its Galaxy Ring does not infringe on Oura’s patents and is seeking legal confirmation before its August launch.
On May 30, Samsung’s lawyers filed a lawsuit in San Francisco District Court against Oura Health Oy, seeking a declaratory judgment and a trial. Why? Because they believe Oura will sue Samsung over the Galaxy Ring – just as it has sued three other smart ring makers – and want to establish legal innocence before the smart ring goes on sale.
Court documents (via The Verge ) reveal that Samsung intends to send the Galaxy Ring into mass production in “mid-June 2024” and will begin sales of smart rings “in or around August 2024.” Samsung has long hinted at a summer launch of Galaxy Unpacked, but this is the first official confirmation.
Samsung argued that Oura’s “pattern of indiscriminately asserting patent infringement against any and all competitors in the smart ring market” is a “real, imminent risk to Samsung” and the Galaxy Ring’s chances of success.
The paper then goes through Oura’s history of suing three other smart ring manufacturers for alleged patent infringement: Circular, Ultrahuman and RingConn. In one case, Oura “alleged infringement by Circular and then sued Circular before receiving a sample of the Circular Ring,” months before it went on sale. Oura filed a joint lawsuit at the ITC against these three brands in March 2024, and the case is ongoing.
Samsung fears that the Oura could target them next in the run-up to the August launch, leading to bad press and stalling sales for a major new product.
When Samsung first announced the Galaxy Ring, Oura responded by touting its “strongest IP portfolio – in both hardware and software – for the smart ring form factor, with 100 issued patents, 270 pending patent applications and 130+ registered trademarks.’
Samsung refers to that announcement directly in the lawsuit, along with several interviews in which Oura CEO Tom Hale repeatedly mentioned his company’s willingness to “protect [its] intellectual property’ and praised Masimo, who sued Apple over SpO2 technology and argued for a ban on the Apple Watch.
The rest of the case walks a delicate line. Samsung first stated that Oura was suing companies over “features common to almost all smart rings, such as the inclusion of sensors, electronics and batteries.” However, Samsung then argued that the “Galaxy Ring did not and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claims” of the five most frequently cited Oura patents in the previous lawsuits.
To summarize, Samsung thinks it’s unfair for Oura to weaponize smart ring patents for basic functions. At the same time, Samsung claims that its unique Galaxy Ring designs are sufficiently different from the Oura Ring (Gen 3) that Oura cannot claim they are stolen.
We don’t expect this lawsuit to be resolved before the Galaxy Ring launches in August, but the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of the smart ring competition.
The Samsung vs. Oura legal battle isn’t just about the Galaxy Ring
Back in January, I wrote a column listing the reasons why the Galaxy Ring is exciting and why it might fail. One key obstacle to his success? As I said at the time, Oura is “weaponizing its patents” against smart ring makers; I claimed that “Oura lawyers are ready to strike if Samsung comes close to its hundreds of patented smart ring designs”.
I’d say, “I told you so,” but I won’t claim to be some sort of prophetic technological oracle. I didn’t need to watch Oura’s CEO bring up the IP over and over again to know what was coming. Its legal history has made it clear that Oura has no intention of allowing Samsung to encroach on its territory, even if claimed that “new players” like Samsung provided “validation” for smart rings.
I expected Oura to fire its patent volley first; Little did I know that Samsung’s legal team would leave nothing to chance.
Still, I find the Samsung vs. Oura smart ring battle fascinating. Samsung is the Goliath of the tech world and the furthest thing from an outsider. But in the smart ring space, Oura tries to knock out competitors one by one as they appear, like a controversial game of Whack-a-Mole.
If Samsung can convince the US District Court that it didn’t infringe on Oura, then it has the resources to become a major player in the smart ring space — if only for Android users. More importantly (to me), this case could set a precedent for other smart ring brands (with less robust legal teams) to argue that Oura’s patents shouldn’t apply to them as well.
If Oura beats Samsung, I wonder if the companies will see this as a sign to abandon smart ring development, as Oura’s hundreds of patents would hinder smart ring design. do not do violate their IP.
I don’t want to berate Oura for having the foresight to patent universal smart ring ideas before its rivals. This is not a “patent troll”, but rather someone who actually puts their ideas into practice with a popular consumer product. Legal credit should rest on whether Samsung infringed Oura, not on Oura’s relentless legal strategy.
But that doesn’t change the fact that smart rings will remain niche if only one company can legally manufacture them with basic smart features. Monopolies don’t usually lead to innovation.
