Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Cheetah Omni v. Whoop | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00478

Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Whoop

6:23-cv-00478 W.D. Tex. Closed US9055868B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 28 Sep 2023, with US9055868B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9055868B2
Application no.
US14/476082
Case no.
6:23-cv-00478
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Xavier Rodriguez
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
30 Jun 2023 – 28 Sep 2023
Duration
90 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
System and method for voice control of medical devices
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00478, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9055868B2 Inactive App. US14/476082

System and method for voice control of medical devices

A diagnostic system includes a plurality of semiconductor diodes, a multiplexer, and one or more waveguide structures to form an output beam. A lens system communicates some of the output beam onto a part of a user’s body comprising blood to perform a measurement. A software application is capable of generating data based at least in part on the measurement, and it operates on a control system that may have a touch-screen, a proximity sensor, and a wireless transceiver to transmit wireless data over a wireless link. A host comprises a digital file, control logic at the host to process at least the portion of the wireless data to generate a status of the user, a memory storage device for recording the status, and an output for communicating at least a portion of the status or associated information over a communication link to one or more remote display output devices.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
16 Jun 2015
Earliest priority
3 Sep 2002
Est. expiry
29 Aug 2023
Validity challenges
2 on record90015821 · EPR · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., LTDIPR2025-01249 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H01S3/30A61B5/021A61B5/024A61B5/1455A61B5/02A61B5/00
Prosecution counsel
Brooks, Kushman P.C.
Examiner
HELLNER, MARK
US9055868B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9055868B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of September, 2023.”

Case 6:23-cv-00478 · W.D. Tex. · closed 28 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:23-cv-00478?

6:23-cv-00478 is a patent infringement action brought by Cheetah Omni, LLC against Whoop, filed on 30 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 28 September 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00478?

US9055868B2 (“System and method for voice control of medical devices”), assigned to OMNI MEDSCI, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists System and method for voice control of medical devices.

How was case 6:23-cv-00478 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff Cheetah Omni, LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of September, 2023.”

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 6:23-cv-00478 take?

90 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jun 2023 to closure on 28 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00478?

Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez presided. Jamil N. Alibhai, Michael J. Labrie, Spencer F. Smith, Winston Oliver Huff and Zachary A.P. Oubre are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cheetah Omni.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00478 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00478 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.