Patent Infringement Case: Finland's Oura Scores Initial Victory Against Ultrahuman

Finland-based smart ring company Oura has won a preliminary legal victory against Bengaluru-based smart ring and health monitoring device manufacturer Ultrahuman in a patent infringement case.

“It is my initial determination that a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, has occurred by the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain smart ring wearable devices, systems, and components thereof based on infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178. I hereby certify this Initial Determination and Recommended Determination to the Commission,” ruled the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dori Johnson Hines.

The matter pertains to a patent infringement case related to Oura Ring’s form factor. In a blogpost, the Finnish company said that the ALJ outlined a “long list of infringements” by competitors, including Ultrahuman and China-based RingConn, adding that the judge noted that all of Oura’s patent claims were valid

Oura said that the ITC’s claim-by-claim analysis found that both Ultrahuman and RingConn’s products infringed “every element of every asserted claim” of Oura’s patent. The Finnish major also claimed that Ultrahuman was “called out” for having falsified evidence of a manufacturing facility in Texas in the US.

The ruling, first reported by ZDNet, could lead to an import ban on Ultrahuman rings in the US, one of the company’s fastest-growing markets for biometric wearables.

Did Ultrahuman Fake A Manufacturing Facility In The US?

As per the ruling accessed by Inc42, Oura presented a screengrab of an Ultrahuman marketing video showing the latter’s name and logo painted in giant letters at the Indian startup’s manufacturing facility in Texas. In another image, titled “reality”, Oura showed the same premises with no Ultrahuman logo at all.

The screenshot was from a video that Ultrahuman and its cofounder and CEO Mohit Kumar had posted on social media platform X earlier this year. The video showed a giant Ultrahuman factory, with large American flags hanging on the walls and workers working at the plant.

The ALJ observed that not only did Ultrahuman infringe on Oura’s patents but also misrepresented having a factory in the US, which it said would soon begin producing smart rings for the US market.

“In conjunction with contending that it has a manufacturing facility in Texas, Ultrahuman intended to show, through Mr. Kumar’s slides, a building in Plano, Texas. The reality is that the building does not house an Ultrahuman facility; it is the facility of a third party, SVTronics, which Ultrahuman characterises as its manufacturing partner,” the ITC noted.

Another screengrab presented by Oura showed Ultrahuman’s logos hanging from the factory’s ceilings. But, the preliminary ruling read, “In Mr Kumar’s proposed slides, interior signage with Ultrahuman’s logo was fabricated to cover the actual signage”.

Meanwhile, Ultrahuman’s counsel contested the claims and said that the video had been altered by Ultrahuman’s marketing department. “What is changed in that video was changed by the Marketing Department at Ultrahuman as part of pre-production to make a commercial. Nothing to do with changing evidence as has been implied there,” Ultrahuman’s lawyer argued.

However, the ALJ called this argument “questionable”.

“Ultrahuman’s counsel also stated that the video that was to accompany Mr. Kumar’s testimony “was only coming in as a demonstrative”. This is concerning. It certainly cannot be that the presentation of false information can be excused because it is presented as a “demonstrative”,” the ruling added.

Meanwhile, commenting on the development, Oura said, “We’re happy with the initial determination, which validates our position and the strength of our patents in the US. The initial determination is subject to review by the full Commission in the coming months, and we’re optimistic that the Commission will make a similar determination that Oura’s inventions and patents are being infringed upon by foreign competitors.”

On the other hand, an Ultrahuman spokesperson told ZDNET, “We respectfully but firmly disagree with the recent initial determination and remain confident in our position. Our fast-scaling Texas facility is set to cover 100% of US demand within the next 2-3 months – underscoring our commitment to domestic operations and customer-first innovation”.

Oura Vs Ultrahuman

This comes more than a year after the over alleged patent and copyright infringements. The petition alleged that the similarities of Ultrahuman Ring with the Oura Ring in appearance, structure, and functionalities were not a mere coincidence.

“While Ultrahuman presents as an innovative startup, upon information and belief, Ultrahuman is funded in part by a sovereign wealth fund, supported by an investor who gained access to confidential and proprietary information on the Oura Ring in or around December of 2021,” Oura claimed in its petition.

The Finnish company’s plea also alleged that the material used for the Ultrahuman Ring was the same as the Oura Ring, including durable titanium with non-allergenic and non-metallic inner moulding.

Founded in 2019 by Kumar and Vatsal Singhal, Ultrahuman develops various health tracking and monitoring devices, including fitness rings. It has also built a subscription-based fitness platform that also offers a range of workout content based on the data collected from the users’ devices.

The preliminary order comes just days after reports surfaced that Ultrahuman was nearing a deal to raise more than $120 Mn from WestBridge Capital and other private equity (PE) firms at a valuation of $550 Mn to $600 Mn, a steep premium of 380% from its last valuation of $125 Mn in March 2024.

The post appeared first on .