{"id":1171,"date":"2024-06-04T21:17:18","date_gmt":"2024-06-04T21:17:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/a-preemptive-strike-samsung-electronics-requests-declaratory-non-infringement-judgment-against-oura-ring-patents\/"},"modified":"2024-06-04T21:17:18","modified_gmt":"2024-06-04T21:17:18","slug":"a-preemptive-strike-samsung-electronics-requests-declaratory-non-infringement-judgment-against-oura-ring-patents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/a-preemptive-strike-samsung-electronics-requests-declaratory-non-infringement-judgment-against-oura-ring-patents\/","title":{"rendered":"A Preemptive Strike? Samsung Electronics Requests Declaratory Non-Infringement Judgment Against Oura Ring Patents"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div>\n<p>Samsung Electronics, represented by a team from O\u2019Melveny, recently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Oura Health, maker of the Oura smart ring, asking the Northern District of California to preemptively declare that Samsung\u2019s soon-to-be-released Galaxy Ring doesn\u2019t infringe on Oura\u2019s patents.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis action arises from Oura\u2019s pattern of indiscriminate assertion of patent infringement against any and all competitors in the smart ring market, and its statements confirming its intentions to assert its patents against all competitors in the market,\u201d Samsung\u2019s May 30 complaint asserts to explain the necessity of a preemptive strike. \u201cEach and every time a major competitor has developed and\/or released a product that competes in the smart ring market, Oura has filed a patent infringement action against that competitor.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Samsung Electronics, represented by a team from O\u2019Melveny, recently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Oura Health, maker of the Oura smart ring, asking the Northern District [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1172,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1637,1635,467,1638,1639,1641,1632,1636,1640,1634,1633],"class_list":["post-1171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-declaratory","tag-electronics","tag-judgment","tag-noninfringement","tag-oura","tag-patents","tag-preemptive","tag-requests","tag-ring","tag-samsung","tag-strike"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1171\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1172"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}