Audit Just-Issued Patents Before Funding Ultrahuman's Comeback

You are deciding whether to fund a startup that just cleared customs after an IP ban. The riskiest line in the diligence file can be a grant date: Oura's utility patent 12,769,363 was granted on October 20, two days before the company filed its new suit.

A customs clearance can look like a green light, but it may only be the first layer of a patent risk. The audit separates a real comeback from a temporary clearance by asking whether the incumbent has already prepared the next claim.

Run the audit before money moves

• Confirm the scope of the prior exclusion. Pull the earlier trade order and the customs clearance. Read the product description, patent number, and exclusion language. Finish with a one-page memo that says which claims were barred and which were left open.
• Pull the incumbent's issued patents and recent grants. Search the patent register for active design and utility patents. Check grant dates against the filing date of any new suit. The deliverable is a table of patent numbers, grant dates, and the claims each patent covers.
• Map the manufacturing co-defendants. Identify who makes the product, where the factory sits, and whether the maker can be sued as a separate defendant. Finish with a supply-chain note that names the factory, city, and legal theory for adding it to the case.
• Price licensing and injunction downside. Model a license deal, a damages award, and a permanent sales ban. Close with a downside case that states the royalty rate, damages exposure, and revenue lost if the product is pulled.

Make the audit produce documents the investor can enforce, not a folder of PDFs.

Ultrahuman's Ring Pro shows the gap

Oura won an earlier U.S. International Trade Commission case that blocked imports and sales of Ultrahuman's Ring Air, pushing the startup to redesign. The redesigned Ring Pro launched in February and received clearance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in March, allowing Ultrahuman to sell it again in the United States.

Oura filed a fresh patent case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking money and a permanent court order ending U.S. sales of the Ring Pro. The filing relies on two patents, D804,471 and 12,769,363, which Oura says fell outside the earlier customs decision.

Oura also sued SVTronics, the Texas electronics maker that allegedly produces the Ring Pro in Plano, Texas. Ultrahuman raised $70 million in September from investors including Qualcomm Ventures and Labcorp, at a valuation of roughly $365 million. Oura has royalty-based licensing deals with RingConn and Circular, letting those companies keep selling.

Put the audit in the term sheet

Use the audit to set terms, not to fill a diligence file. Require the startup to produce the order-scope memo, the patent table, and the supply-chain note before money moves. Name the person responsible for each deliverable and the date it is due.

If the prior order is narrow, the incumbent's recent grants are broad, or a factory is named as a co-defendant, the startup needs a legal budget that can survive a second suit. The founders should explain why the new design avoids the old claims and why the just-issued patents are unlikely to be asserted. If they cannot, the valuation should reflect that uncertainty.

Price the licensing path as a possible outcome. Some incumbents settle for royalties rather than chase an injunction. Model the royalty against the product's gross margin, and treat a permanent sales ban as the worst-case risk that can wipe out the next round's assumptions. The capital call should separate a license, a damages award, and an injunction, with a probability, a dollar range, and a trigger for each. A new complaint naming the same product should already have a plan attached.