Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs. Oura Health Oy

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs. Oura Health Oy

Case Title: Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs. Oura Health Oy & Anr. Order Date: September 1, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 923/2025 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Hon'ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

---

Facts of the Case 📜

The Plaintiff,

Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd, filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, Oura Health Oy, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent them from infringing on their Indian Patent No. IN 549915. The patent, titled

'Electronic Ring Including Sensors For Monitoring Health and Fitness Parameters' , was granted to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2024, for a period of 20 years. The Plaintiff claimed they discovered that the Defendants were selling their product, the

'OURA Ring 4', in India through e-commerce channels. The parties were already involved in legal disputes in US Courts.

---

The Dispute and Legal Arguments ⚖️

The main dispute centered on the Plaintiff's alleged

suppression of material facts and documents from the High Court of Delhi. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff failed to disclose two crucial orders from the

United States International Trade Commission (ITC) dated April 18, 2025, and August 21, 2025. These orders had granted an injunction against the Plaintiff's products in the US market, finding that they infringed on the Defendants' patent.

The Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the US court orders were

irrelevant because patent law is territorial, meaning a patent in one country does not automatically apply in another. They also claimed that the August 21, 2025 order could not be included because the suit was filed on the same day.

The court, however, was not persuaded. It stated that the Plaintiff had a strict obligation to disclose all relevant documents in a commercial suit under

Order XI Rule 1(1) and Order VI Rule 15A of the CPC. The court found that the US orders were highly relevant because they involved the same parties and the same technology. The court also noted that the Plaintiff had sufficient time between filing the suit and the first hearing to bring the orders to the court's attention, which it willfully failed to do.

---

The Court's Decision 🧑‍⚖️

The court concluded that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose the US court orders was

willful and deliberate. This suppression of material information was in disregard of legal obligations and merited the dismissal of the suit at the very beginning.

The High Court of Delhi, therefore,

dismissed the suit. However, it granted the Plaintiff the liberty to file a fresh suit after making a full disclosure of the suppressed orders and providing an explanation for why the findings in those orders are not relevant to the Indian proceedings.

---

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi