In a case that underscores rising competition in the $157 billion-plus wearable tech space, a federal court in has dismissed the declaratory judgment action that Samsung waged against Oura Health. The case stemmed from Samsung’s competing Galaxy Ring, a smart wearable designed to track sleep, heart rate, and other biometrics – features that Oura has previously claimed are covered by its expansive patent portfolio. Interestingly enough, the case at hand was not prompted by Samsung receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the Oura marker; instead, Samsung opted to take action following public statements made by Oura about possibly enforcing its patents against competitors.
The Background in Brief: Samsung filed suit against Oura in May 2024 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a court declaration that its Galaxy Ring does not infringe five Oura patents. The complaint pointed to Oura’s litigation against other smart ring makers – Circular, Ultrahuman, and RingConn – as well as public statements from Oura executives indicating the company would defend its intellectual property rights, including comments referencing Samsung’s Galaxy Ring by name. In an interview with CNBC, for instance, Oura CEO Tom Hale stated that Oura would “monitor the Galaxy Ring” and “take the action that’s appropriate.”
But in an order issued on March 27, the court found that Samsung failed to allege an “actual controversy” sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Granting Oura’s motion to dismiss Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín pointed to the absence of an affirmative act by Oura directed specifically at Samsung – such as a cease-and-desist letter, threat of litigation, or other direct enforcement action. While Oura has aggressively pursued claims against competitors in both U.S. district courts and before the International Trade Commission, it has not (yet) targeted Samsung directly.
Judge Martínez-Olguín also addressed Samsung’s reliance on Oura’s public statements, including Hale’s interview with CNBC in which he said the company would “monitor the Galaxy Ring” and “take the action that’s appropriate.” Those remarks, along with similar statements about Oura’s “strong IP portfolio” and commitment to enforcement, are too general to establish the kind of concrete legal dispute necessary for declaratory judgment jurisdiction, according to the court.
Against that background, Samsung’s attempt to preemptively clear the path for its Galaxy Ring’s U.S. launch, which is expected later this year, was dismissed, though the court granted the company leave to amend its complaint by April 25, 2025 – stating that any new allegations must stem from facts that existed prior to the date of its initial complaint.
THE BOTTOM LINE: As wearable tech continues to blur the line between fashion and health, this case serves as a reminder that aggressive IP enforcement strategies can create a chilling effect in competitive markets – but without a direct threat, courts are likely to be unwilling to referee disputes.
The case is Samsung Electronics Corp. v. Oura Health, 3:24-cv-03245 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
