3B Medical Manufacturing v. Precision Medical — Oxygen Concentrator Patent Dispute Settled in 79 Days
3B Medical Manufacturing filed a four-patent infringement action against Precision Medical in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over oxygen concentrator technology. The parties reached a settlement within 79 days, resulting in dismissal with prejudice — a swift resolution that suggests commercial pressure or pre-existing licensing discussions may have driven a rapid exit.
Four-Patent Oxygen Concentrator Dispute Resolves in Under Three Months
On December 9, 2024, 3B Medical Manufacturing, LLC filed an infringement action against Precision Medical, Inc. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting four U.S. patents — US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 — all directed to oxygen concentrator technology. The case was assigned to Judge Joseph F. Bianco. Precision Medical, a Pennsylvania-based competitor in the medical gas equipment space, was represented by a single attorney from Design IP PC, suggesting a lean defense posture from the outset.
The action closed on February 26, 2025, just 79 days after filing, when Judge Bianco entered an order pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b) dismissing the case with prejudice by agreement of counsel, with no costs awarded to either side. The court expressly retained jurisdiction for 90 days to enforce the underlying settlement agreement. Dismissal with prejudice means 3B Medical cannot re-file the same claims against Precision Medical on these patents, and the settlement terms are binding — though the financial or licensing details remain confidential.
A resolution within 79 days is atypical for multi-patent district court litigation and suggests the parties either entered negotiation shortly after filing or had pre-litigation discussions that accelerated settlement. The no-costs provision indicates a balanced resolution rather than a plaintiff-favourable capitulation. What remains unknown from the public record is whether Precision Medical took a licence, agreed to design around the asserted patents, or made a financial payment — all of which would have materially different strategic implications for the oxygen concentrator market.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 79 days
79 days — notably faster than the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice under Local Rule 41.1(b)
Local Rule 41.1(b) of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allows courts to dismiss settled actions with prejudice on notice from counsel. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — 3B Medical cannot refile these four patent claims against Precision Medical. The court’s 90-day jurisdictional retention is a standard enforcement window, ensuring the settlement agreement is honoured before the court loses oversight.
Final — no refiling permitted3B Medical secures binding resolution; patents remain enforceable
A with-prejudice dismissal on agreed terms typically signals that the patent holder extracted a commercial concession — whether a licence, royalty, or product modification agreement. Critically, the four asserted patents are not invalidated by this settlement: they remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. 3B Medical’s IP portfolio in oxygen concentrator technology retains its deterrent value for future enforcement actions.
Patents intact — future enforcement possiblePrecision Medical exits litigation without public admission of infringement
Settlement with no public finding of infringement is generally favourable for a defendant’s commercial reputation. The no-costs provision suggests Precision Medical did not capitulate entirely. However, the with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is likely tied to a binding undertaking — potentially a licence, design-around commitment, or market restriction — the specifics of which are not disclosed in the public record. Precision Medical cannot now challenge these patents on the same claims in this forum.
No infringement finding — terms confidentialSwift settlement reinforces 3B Medical’s oxygen concentrator patent portfolio
A rapid, prejudicial settlement on four patents consistent with suggests the asserted patents presented credible infringement risk that Precision Medical was unwilling to litigate through claim construction and trial. For other oxygen concentrator manufacturers, this outcome may signal that 3B Medical’s portfolio is active and enforceable. Competitors should assess exposure to US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 before commercialising products in overlapping technical areas.
Active enforcement signal for the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLC | Company | Medical device manufacturer — holder of US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2 and US10702669B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Precision Medical, Inc. | Company | Precision Medical, Inc. — Pennsylvania-based oxygen concentrator and medical gas equipment companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | BRIAN S. TOBIN | Attorney | Counsel for 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | DAVID L. ATALLAH | Attorney | Counsel for 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Bennett Freemann | Attorney | Counsel for 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | TIMOTHY J. MURPHY | Attorney | Counsel for 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carlson, Gaskey & Olds PC | Law Firm | Representing 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Freemann Law Offices A Professional Corporation | Law Firm | Representing 3B MEDICAL MANUFACTURING, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Damon A. Neagle | Attorney | Counsel for Precision Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Design IP PC | Law Firm | Representing Precision Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joseph F. Bianco | Judge | Pennsylvania Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s phrasing — ‘dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs’ — confirms this is a consent-based termination, not a court-imposed ruling on the merits. The explicit no-costs provision is notable: it departs from the default that costs follow the successful party, implying the settlement was structured as a mutual exit. The 90-day jurisdictional retention under Rule 41.1(b) is a procedural safeguard allowing either party to return to court if the settlement agreement is breached before final closure.
US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2 & US10702669B2 — Oxygen Concentrator Technology
The four asserted patents — US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 — cover technology in the oxygen concentrator space, a sector critical to home healthcare and clinical respiratory treatment. US7604005B2, with an application number suggesting an earlier filing vintage, likely represents foundational claims in this portfolio, while the remaining three patents are consistent with continuation or improvement patents filed to extend coverage across evolving product architectures. Together they suggest a layered enforcement portfolio rather than reliance on a single patent.
Oxygen concentrators are high-volume medical devices with significant commercial stakes — demand accelerated sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained elevated. A portfolio spanning four issued U.S. patents in this space creates meaningful IP barriers for competitors. The fact that 3B Medical was willing to bring a four-patent suit rather than a single-count action suggests confidence in the portfolio’s breadth and a strategic intent to assert overlapping coverage. Competing manufacturers should assess whether their product designs potentially read on claims across all four patents, not just the most recently issued.
Should your product team run an FTO against these four oxygen concentrator patents?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing oxygen concentrators in the U.S. should treat this litigation as a trigger for FTO review. The fact that 3B Medical enforced all four patents simultaneously — and achieved a swift with-prejudice settlement — is consistent with a robust, commercially active portfolio. Respiratory device manufacturers, OEM suppliers, and importers of oxygen concentrator products are the most directly exposed categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 in a single workflow. The tool surfaces claim-level risk flags, identifies relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and benchmarks your design against the prosecution history to assess claim scope — giving your R&D and legal teams actionable clearance data before commercialisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10357628B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Oxygen Concentrator & Respiratory Device Patent Cases
Explore patent infringement actions involving oxygen concentrator and respiratory device technology filed in federal district courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
What this case signals for the oxygen concentrator IP landscape
A four-patent suit resolved in under 80 days sends a clear message about 3B Medical’s enforcement posture and portfolio strength.
79-day resolution suggests pre-litigation leverage, not litigation fatigue
Cases that settle this quickly typically reflect either strong pre-existing negotiation or a defendant that rapidly assessed its exposure and chose certainty over litigation risk. The no-costs term indicates balance — not capitulation — but the with-prejudice dismissal binds both parties permanently on these claims.
Four asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties
Settlement does not touch patent validity. US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 are fully enforceable against any other oxygen concentrator manufacturer. Companies operating in this space should treat this outcome as an active enforcement signal and conduct FTO analysis before product launch.
3B v Precision — key questions answered
3B Medical Manufacturing, LLC asserted four U.S. patents: US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 — all directed to oxygen concentrator technology. The case was filed December 9, 2024 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and settled 79 days later.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by order of Judge Joseph F. Bianco on February 26, 2025, pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b). Dismissal with prejudice is final — 3B Medical cannot refile the same claims against Precision Medical on these four patents. The court retained jurisdiction for 90 days to enforce the settlement agreement.
Under Local Rule 41.1(b) of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, when a case is dismissed by settlement, the court may retain jurisdiction for a set period to enforce the settlement agreement. The 90-day window allows either party to return to court if the other breaches the settlement terms before the court fully closes the matter.
Yes. Settlement and dismissal with prejudice do not affect the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents against third parties. US10357628B2, US11389614B2, US7604005B2, and US10702669B2 remain issued, in-force U.S. patents that 3B Medical can assert against other manufacturers or distributors of competing oxygen concentrator products.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid settlement. However, a 79-day resolution in a four-patent district court case is atypical and may suggest pre-existing licensing discussions, strong claim mapping evidence, or a commercial relationship between the parties that incentivised a quick exit. The no-costs provision indicates neither side publicly claimed a decisive win.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.