Court Construes Four Disputed Terms in Omni MedSci's Medical Diagnostic Patents in Whoop Case and Finds "Biosensors" Not Indefinite.

The case

Omni MedSci, Inc. sued Whoop, Inc. in the District of Delaware on February 3, 2025, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Whoop, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00140. The first amended complaint (D.I. 11) asserts seven patents: U.S. Patents 9,055,868, 9,651,533, 10,517,484, 10,874,304, 11,160,455, 12,193,790, and 12,268,475. As the court's later opinions recount, the first amended complaint added the '475 patent to the six named in the original complaint, and Omni later dismissed its claims on the '484 patent (D.I. 14, 20). The court's order describes the patents as directed to medical diagnostic systems that use optical devices to measure a patient's physiological conditions. The case is before Judge William C. Bryson.

The docket shows a September 4, 2025 memorandum opinion, amended September 24, 2025, granting in part and denying in part Whoop's motion to dismiss the allegations of contributory, induced, and willful infringement (D.I. 30, 33). On December 23, 2025 the court denied without prejudice Whoop's first motion to stay pending inter partes and post-grant review, finding a stay premature before the Patent Office decided whether to institute review (D.I. 61). Whoop renewed the motion (D.I. 78), seeking a stay pending IPR2025-01250, IPR2025-01252, IPR2025-01253, and IPR2025-01254 and an ex parte reexamination of the '868 patent. After the motion was filed, the Board instituted post-grant review of the '790 patent on Whoop's petition, which the court also considered. In a May 18, 2026 memorandum opinion and order (D.I. 101), the court concluded that a stay should be granted, provided that Whoop agreed to be bound by the estoppel related to the inter partes reviews brought by third-party companies as if Whoop had brought them. On June 1, 2026 the court, by oral order, lifted the temporary stay it had entered on March 13, 2026 in view of a letter from Whoop's counsel (D.I. 102, 103). An amended scheduling order followed on July 7, 2026 (D.I. 111).

The November 2 claim construction order

In a 15-page Claim Construction Order (D.I. 157), signed November 2, 2026, the court recorded that the parties had agreed on the construction of all but four terms or phrases. Claim construction briefing ran from Whoop's opening brief on August 5, 2026 through Omni's surreply on September 8, 2026. The remaining disputes concerned two terms in the '868 patent, one phrase in the '455 patent, and Whoop's argument that the term "biosensors" in claim 1 of the '475 patent is indefinite.

The '868 patent: "voice input signals" and "position information from a location sensor"

U.S. Patent 9,055,868, titled System and Method for Voice Control of Medical Devices, issued June 16, 2015. The order states that every claim requires a control system "capable of receiving voice input signals and manually entered input signals." Omni argued that "voice input signals" takes its plain and ordinary meaning, with "signals generated from voice input" as a fallback. Whoop proposed "signals that enable voice control of a medical device." The court found that the evidence shows vocal input signals can execute tasks other than controlling the medical devices, and construed the term to mean "voice signals to a processor that control the medical devices and direct other functions performed by the diagnostic system."

In a footnote, the court wrote that it typically disfavors using "plain and ordinary meaning" to resolve claim construction disputes, because doing so postpones the dispute until after the parties have framed their cases around competing meanings.

For claim 7, which recites circuitry "for obtaining position information from a location sensor," Whoop proposed "information from a sensor regarding the position of a diagnostic component relative to the user's body," and Omni argued for plain and ordinary meaning. The court relied on the specification's description of the location sensor as able to serve as a proximity sensor and on claim 13, which depends from claim 7 and adds that the control system is coupled to a proximity sensor, and applied claim differentiation. It construed the phrase in claims 7 and 15 to mean position information from a location sensor that "includes, but is not limited to, information relating to the position of a medical device relative to the patient's tissue."

The '455 patent: "a light source comprising a driver and a plurality of semiconductor sources"

U.S. Patent 11,160,455, titled Multi-Wavelength Wearable Device for Non-Invasive Blood Measurements in Tissue, issued November 2, 2021. As quoted in the order, claim 1 recites a system for measuring one or more physiological parameters and for use with a smart phone or tablet, with a wearable device adapted to be placed on teeth, a wrist, or an ear of a user and including a light source comprising a driver and a plurality of semiconductor sources. Whoop proposed "a light source containing a driver within it," based on statements Omni made in IPR2025-01252, an inter partes review brought by third-party companies. Omni argued for plain and ordinary meaning.

The court held that Omni's statements in that proceeding, distinguishing a prior art patent on the ground that its driver circuitry sat within a probe rather than within the light source itself, amounted to a prosecution disclaimer, citing Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To account for the "semiconductor sources" limitation, which Whoop's proposal omitted, the court construed the phrase to mean "a light source containing a driver within it, and a plurality of semiconductor sources."

The '475 patent: "biosensors" and indefiniteness

U.S. Patent 12,268,475, titled Wearable Device for Differential Measurement on Pulse Rate and Blood Flow, issued April 8, 2025. Whoop argued that claims 1 and 5 are indefinite for two reasons: that the term "biosensors" cannot be understood with reasonable certainty given that the claim treats the biosensors, the light source, and the detection system as separate components, and that the limitation impermissibly mixes structural and functional language. The order notes that indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

On the first argument, the court pointed to general-purpose and medical dictionary definitions and to testimony from Omni's expert declarant, found that "biosensors" has a broad but definite meaning, and held that the term is not indefinite by itself. Because Omni conceded that the claimed biosensor must be separate from the claimed light source and detection system, the court construed "biosensors" to mean "a device that senses information about the biological characteristics of a subject and is separate from the light source and the detection system recited in that claim."

On the second argument, the court wrote that claim 1 "is not drafted with ideal precision" but is reasonably clear that it is directed to biosensors adapted to be placed on the user, a light source, one or more lenses, and a detection system. Citing Ultimate Pointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and distinguishing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the court held that claim 1 and its dependent claims are not indefinite on the ground that they contain both structural and functional limitations.

Where the case stands

The July 7, 2026 amended scheduling order sets fact discovery to close December 18, 2026, opening expert reports for January 21, 2027, rebuttal expert reports for February 18, 2027, and reply expert reports for March 11, 2027. It also sets a final pretrial conference for September 20, 2027 and a five-day jury trial for November 29, 2027 before Judge Bryson. On October 23, 2026 the court entered a stipulated order amending that schedule as to amended and final contentions (D.I. 154).