This is a weekly roundup of court cases, rulings and regulatory actions involving the sports watch, ring and fitness platform companies this site covers. Each entry states who is involved, what is alleged or decided, where the matter stands and what it could mean for athletes. Allegations are reported as allegations.
Other sites push out an alert for every case and ruling as it happens. This roundup gathers the week into a single read and keeps your inbox clear. The weekly Deep Dive Digest email covers the wider sports technology news for those who want it.
Also in the Deep Dive series: Regulatory Filing, Trademark & Patent Filing, Fix Files, Feature Files and the Deep Dive Digest.
The week’s main development is a fresh patent suit from Oura against Ultrahuman, this time aimed at the redesigned Ring Pro that Ultrahuman launched to return to the US market after the Ring Air import ban. Oura is asking for damages and a permanent injunction, and one of the two patents it relies on was issued only two days before the complaint was filed.
Oura v Ultrahuman and SVTronics: new patent suit targets the Ring Pro
Ouraring Inc. has filed a patent infringement complaint against Ultrahuman Healthcare and SVTronics in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit was reported on 22 October 2026. SVTronics is a Texas electronics manufacturer that, according to the complaint, makes the Ring Pro at a facility in Plano under Ultrahuman’s direction. Oura alleges that the Ring Pro infringes US Patent No. D804,471, a design patent, and US Patent No. 12,769,363, which was issued on 20 October 2026 and is reported to cover a smart ring with a curved battery, a circuit board, magnets and sensors. Oura seeks damages and a permanent injunction barring sales of the ring.
The two companies have been in dispute since 2023. Oura’s earlier case at the US International Trade Commission led to an import ban on the Ring Air, which remains on sale outside the US. Ultrahuman launched the redesigned Ring Pro in February 2026 and obtained a favourable ruling from US Customs and Border Protection in March. Oura’s position, as reported, is that the customs ruling dealt only with the patent from the earlier dispute and not with the two patents now asserted. Ultrahuman’s chief executive, Mohit Kumar, has said the company will contest the claims, that no court order affects the Ring Pro and that the ring remains available to US customers. The case is at the complaint stage and no ruling has been made.
For athletes, nothing changes immediately: the Ring Pro is still on sale in the US and a permanent injunction could only follow a finding of infringement, which in a district court case typically takes well over a year. If Oura were to succeed, US buyers could lose access to a second Ultrahuman ring, which would narrow the choice of subscription-free smart rings. Owners of an existing Ring Pro would not ordinarily be affected by a sales injunction, although support and replacement units could become harder to obtain.
Evidence: Confirmed by two reports. Source: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, reported by Bloomberg Law, reported from around the web
More from last week’s Legal Files roundup.
Browse every issue at the Legal Files hub.
Last Updated on 27 October 2026 by tfk the5krunner

tfk is the founder and author of the5krunner, an independent endurance sports technology publication. With 20 years of hands-on testing of GPS watches and wearables, and competing in triathlons at an international age-group level, tfk provides in-depth expert analysis of fitness technology for serious athletes and endurance sport competitors. See the gear tfk uses. ID
