A Judge of the California district court, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, has dismissed the case of Samsung against Finnish smart ring manufacturer Oura. The dismissal followed a motion by Oura to dismiss Samsung’s action for declaratory judgment, which would have declared that its Galaxy Ring did not infringe on Oura patents. Samsung has through April 25 to file an amended complaint, but the court was explicit that anything that had happened since the original filing and was conducted by Oura cannot be included in the amended claim.
Samsung filed the lawsuit last summer, claiming that Oura has a history of opportunistically asserting patent infringement claims against competitors in the smart ring market. The South Korean company cited previous lawsuits filed by Oura against Ultrahuman, Circular, and RingConn as proof. Samsung claimed that Oura’s lawsuit history made preemptive court action necessary in order to protect its Galaxy Ring from potential future patent dispute.
However, Judge Martínez-Olguín ruled that Samsung failed to provide sufficient evidence of any specific or material action on Oura’s part against Samsung’s patents. Speculative fears, in the view of the judge, were not sufficient for the declaratory judgment action. Samsung must demonstrate specific actions by Oura before the filing of the original lawsuit in order to submit an amended complaint.
Samsung’s legal strategy is apparently aimed at buying time and obtaining a friendly court forum in California for any future dispute with Oura. While the dismissal may seem like a setback, it has allowed Samsung more time to prepare for possible patent wars concerning its Galaxy Ring, which launched on July 10.
The case also highlights broader issues in the smart ring industry, where Oura has frequently utilized broad features common to most wearable devices—such as electronics, sensors, and batteries—as grounds for patent infringement suits. Despite all the dismissal, Samsung may view it as an opportunity to firm up its position ahead of more such legal battles with Oura over intellectual property rights.
