Delhi HC Dismisses Ultrahuman’s Patent Suit Against Oura

The Delhi High Court (HC) has dismissed Ultrahuman’s patent infringement lawsuit against Finnish wearable maker Oura. In an order passed on September 1 (Monday), the HC observed that Ultrahuman suppressed the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) ruling in favour of Oura.

The HC said that the ITC orders dated April 18 and August 21, which refer to the rival claims of the duo in regards to their smart rings, were relevant enough for Ultrahuman to have made a disclosure. 

After issuing a preliminary ban on Ultrahuman’s smart rings sale and import in the US in April, the ITC issued its final ruling on August 21, which found that Ultrahuman’s Ring Air violated several of Oura’s design and utility patents.  

Commenting on the Delhi HC’s order, a spokesperson of Ultrahuman said, “The Delhi High Court has asked us to refile our complaint because of a procedural clarification. This case was filed to defend Ultrahuman’s intellectual property in India. In our complaint, we included the facts on the ongoing ITC case. However, the court has asked us to include further details and clarifications.”

The spokesperson added that the company will refile the case shortly.

Inc42 has also reached out to Oura, seeking its comments on the order. The story will be updated on receiving a response. 

Ultrahuman moved the Delhi HC last month, alleging that Oura Health Oy and its US unit Ouraring Inc infringed upon its Indian patent granted in September 2024 for its Oura Ring 4. 

“Threatened by our success, Oura has blatantly copied our advanced intellectual property, including women’s health features, circadian health tools, and glucose monitoring platform, thereby benefiting from our investment in public health without a license to do so,” the startup had said back then.

During the case’s hearing yesterday, Oura’s lawyers pointed out that Ultrahuman did not disclose the relevant US orders and was thus in non-compliance with the Indian legal requirement to reveal all central facts. 

The HC observed that during the course of the arguments, Ultrahuman did not show any “contrition” for not filing the aforementioned documents but defiance to the orders passed in the US. Besides, the court said that the non-filing of the American exclusions and cease-and-desist decisions was a material lapse. 

“Wilful failure of the Plaintiff to disclose a material fact/document under the ruse of its personal opinion of the party cannot be accepted. The fact that the ITC proceeding was germane is evident from its reference at paragraph 13 of the plaint,” the order read.

However, the court added that Ultrahuman can file a fresh suit “after making full disclosure of the suppressed orders in the plaint and/or any other information relevant to the issue and the parties.”