Oura Sues Ultrahuman and SVTronics Over the Ring PRO on a Design Patent and a Newly Issued Utility Patent.

The complaint

The case is Ouraring Inc. v. Ultrahuman Healthcare Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00953 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 22, 2026 in the Marshall Division and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Oura, a Delaware corporation based in San Francisco, sues Ultrahuman Healthcare Inc., Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., and SVTronics, Inc. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Ultrahuman Healthcare Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., an Indian company based in Bengaluru, that SVTronics is a Texas corporation, and that the defendants have formed a business partnership and operate a facility in Plano, Texas. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) as to Ultrahuman Healthcare Inc. and SVTronics and under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) as to the Indian company. The accused product is the Ultrahuman Ring PRO and other Ultrahuman devices with substantially the same design, structure, and features. James A. Fussell III of Mayer Brown LLP is lead counsel.

The earlier fights

The complaint says Oura first sued Ultrahuman in the same district on September 1, 2023, Oura Health Oy v. Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00396, over the Ultrahuman Ring AIR, and filed a section 337 complaint on March 13, 2024 that became Investigation No. 337-TA-1398. According to the complaint, the Commission found a violation based on claims 1, 2, and 12 to 14 of U.S. Patent 11,868,178 and issued remedial orders, with its final determination noticed August 21, 2025. It says Ultrahuman then sought a ruling from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on its redesigned Ring PRO, and that on March 6, 2026 the agency ruled the redesign does not infringe the '178 patent. The complaint alleges that ruling addressed only the '178 patent, and it alleges, on information and belief, that Ultrahuman began selling the Ring PRO in the United States in May 2026.

The patents

U.S. Patent D804,471, "Wearable Computing Device," issued December 5, 2017, claims the ornamental design for a wearable computing device as shown in its figures. The complaint accuses the Ring PRO's design under Count I.

U.S. Patent 12,769,363, "Wearable Computing Device," issued October 20, 2026, two days before the complaint. The complaint asserts at least claim 10, which covers a wearable ring device that detects physical movement, skin temperature, and heart rate, with a housing whose interior surface contacts the user, a curved battery shaped to fit a curved portion of the housing, one or more magnets that attract the ring to an external charging device through the interior surface, a printed circuit board extending along another portion of the curved perimeter, and components that include an accelerometer or gyroscope, a temperature sensor, a visible light LED, an infrared or near-infrared LED, and a light sensor that detects that light to support heart rate detection. Count II alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement.

The complaint alleges that Oura owns all right, title, and interest in both patents and that the defendants launched the Ring PRO with knowledge of Oura's patent portfolio from years of litigation, and it alleges willful infringement.

The relief sought

Oura asks for judgments of direct and indirect infringement, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, and, at its election for the design patent, the defendants' total profit under 35 U.S.C. 289. It also asks for a permanent injunction or, in the alternative, an ongoing royalty, a judgment of willfulness with enhanced damages, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and interest and costs. Oura demands a jury trial.

What to watch next

Watch for service on the Indian defendant, answers or Rule 12 motions, a motion to transfer, any motion for a preliminary injunction, and any petitions for review of the '363 patent at the PTAB.