Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. et al, No. 2:24-cv-01070 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2026)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:24-cv-01070, Dkt. No. 163
Decided
March 31, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
dge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/31/2026. (NKL)ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 146 Report and Recommendations, 83 Motion to Dismiss filed by OURA HEALTH OY, 68 Motion to Dismiss filed by OURA HEALTH OY. (Motion(s)83, 68, 146 terminate…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION OMNI MEDSCI, INC., §

§ Plaintiff,

§ v.

§ SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO.

§ LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

§ AMERICA, INC., FOSSIL GROUP,

§ Case No. 2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP INC., FOSSIL STORES I, INC.,

§ FOSSIL PARTNERS, L.P.,

§ ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY

§ (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and OURA

§ HEALTH OY,

§ § Defendants.

ORDER Defendant Oura Health OY (“Defendant”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) and a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 83.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 146), recommending a grant in part of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 159.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motions to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Therefore it is ORDERED that Oura’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be DENIED AS MOOT, and Oura’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 83) be GRANTED as to improper joinder; the Motion is otherwise DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. et al, No. 2:24-cv-01070 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01070-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01070-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.