Aardvark Medical v. RhinoSystems: Nasal Irrigation Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Aardvark Medical Inc. asserted five patents covering nasal irrigation and aspiration technology against RhinoSystems, Inc. — maker of the Naväge Nasal Irrigation System — before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after 224 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Five-Patent Nasal Irrigation Suit Ends Abruptly With Prejudice in E.D. Texas
On 18 February 2025, Aardvark Medical Inc. filed an infringement action against RhinoSystems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00212), asserting five US patents — US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2 — directed to nasal irrigation and aspiration devices, with the Naväge Nasal Irrigation System cited as an exemplary accused product. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent judges in the country.
After just 224 days, Aardvark Medical filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Dkt. No. 11). Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and ordered all of Aardvark Medical’s claims against RhinoSystems dismissed with prejudice, with the parties directed to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits, extinguishing Aardvark Medical’s ability to refile the same claims against RhinoSystems in any federal court.
The 224-day duration — well before claim construction briefing would typically begin in E.D. Texas — suggests the matter was resolved through negotiation rather than litigation attrition. The equal costs ruling indicates neither party achieved a fee-shifting outcome. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, design-around, or commercial settlement drove the dismissal, leaving the commercial terms of any resolution unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 224 days
224 days — closed before claim construction in E.D. Texas, where median time to trial exceeds 2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice bars refiling these claims
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss its action. When that dismissal is filed with prejudice — as here — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Aardvark Medical cannot refile the same five patent claims against RhinoSystems in any US federal court. The court’s order accepting the notice makes this finality explicit.
Rule 41(a) — final on the meritsAardvark Medical permanently surrenders its claims against RhinoSystems
By choosing dismissal with prejudice, Aardvark Medical accepted a permanent bar on reasserting these five patents against RhinoSystems on the same accused products. This is an unusual concession for a plaintiff, typically signalling either a confidential settlement that renders further litigation unnecessary, or a strategic reassessment of claim strength following early case analysis. The public record does not confirm which scenario applies.
No refiling permittedRhinoSystems wins finality — but bears its own legal costs
RhinoSystems secured a with-prejudice dismissal — arguably the most protective outcome short of a merits victory — without proceeding to claim construction or trial. However, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs, meaning RhinoSystems cannot recover its legal fees incurred defending the action. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests the case was not found exceptional.
Finality without fee recoveryFive nasal irrigation patents remain enforceable against third parties
The dismissal resolves only Aardvark Medical’s claims against RhinoSystems. All five asserted patents — US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against other nasal irrigation device manufacturers. Competitors operating in this space should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
Patents remain live enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Aardvark Medical Inc. | Company | Nasal irrigation device IP holder — asserting US11883009B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | RhinoSystems, Inc. | Company | RhinoSystems, Inc. — maker of the Naväge Nasal Irrigation SystemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Evan Langdon | Attorney | Counsel for Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Michael Mercadante | Attorney | Counsel for Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Aardvark Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for RhinoSystems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing RhinoSystems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts Aardvark Medical’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice without any merits adjudication. The explicit language — ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ and ‘DENIED AS MOOT’ for all pending relief — confirms the case ends with full finality as to these parties and these claims. The costs-neutral ruling suggests no party achieved the threshold for an exceptional case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and no claim construction or invalidity findings were reached.
US11883009B2 and four related patents — nasal irrigation and aspiration device technology
The five asserted patents — US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2 — cover nasal irrigation and aspiration device technology, a field spanning powered nasal wash systems, saline delivery mechanisms, and aspiration control. US9750856B2 (application US14/622507) is the earliest in the family, suggesting it anchors the core inventive concept, with the later patents (filed under US17 and US18 series applications) representing continuation or improvement claims.
This patent portfolio sits at the intersection of ENT consumer health and medical device engineering. The Naväge Nasal Irrigation System — cited as an exemplary accused product — is a commercially prominent powered nasal hygiene device, signalling that these patents have meaningful market relevance. For competitors developing or distributing nasal irrigation, powered aspiration, or saline delivery products in the US, the continued enforceability of this five-patent family warrants proactive landscape monitoring and FTO assessment.
Should your nasal irrigation product be cleared against US11883009B2 and related patents?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing nasal irrigation systems, powered nasal aspirators, or saline delivery devices in the US market faces direct exposure to this five-patent family. These patents were not invalidated, narrowed, or disclaimed in this proceeding. R&D teams working on ENT hygiene devices, OEM nasal wash systems, or next-generation aspiration platforms should prioritise FTO analysis before commercial launch or geographic expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product teams to map claim scope across US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2, identify design-around pathways, and benchmark against the full Aardvark Medical portfolio. Automated prosecution history retrieval and claim visualisation tools accelerate the analysis cycle — delivering defensible FTO conclusions in days rather than weeks.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11883009B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar nasal irrigation and ENT device patent cases in E.D. Texas
Comparable patent infringement actions asserting medical device and nasal irrigation technology before the Eastern District of Texas and Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the nasal irrigation device IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in under eight months with prejudice is a pattern worth watching across the ENT device sector.
Early resolution with prejudice typically signals a licensing deal or commercial settlement
Cases dismissed with prejudice before claim construction in E.D. Texas — particularly multi-patent assertions — are strongly consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement. The with-prejudice designation protects the defendant while giving the plaintiff consideration it values more than continued litigation. Competitors should monitor whether Aardvark Medical files similar actions against other nasal irrigation device makers.
All five asserted patents survive and remain enforceable against the broader market
The dismissal contains no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no narrowing of patent scope. US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2 are all in force. Any company manufacturing or distributing nasal irrigation or aspiration devices in the US faces potential exposure to the same patent family. An FTO analysis is advisable before product launch or expansion.
Aardvark v RhinoSystems — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in this case means Aardvark Medical permanently waived its right to refile the same five patent claims against RhinoSystems in any US federal court. Judge Gilstrap’s order accepted the voluntary notice and formally closed the case with full finality as to these parties, with no merits adjudication and no fee award to either side.
Aardvark Medical asserted five patents: US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2. All five cover nasal irrigation and aspiration device technology. The Naväge Nasal Irrigation System was cited as an exemplary accused product. All five patents remain in force following the dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed before claim construction — as occurred here after 224 days — is typically consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or commercial settlement that renders further litigation unnecessary. The costs-neutral ruling suggests neither party sought to weaponise fee shifting.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only the claims between Aardvark Medical and RhinoSystems. No invalidity finding, claim construction ruling, or disclaimer of claim scope was issued. US11883009B2, US11889995B2, US11883010B2, US9750856B2, and US11318234B2 remain enforceable against other parties in the nasal irrigation and aspiration device market.
Aardvark Medical was represented by Fabricant LLP (including Alfred Ross Fabricant, Evan Langdon, Joseph Michael Mercadante, and Jennifer Leigh Truelove) alongside McKool Smith PC. RhinoSystems was represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP — a firm with extensive E.D. Texas patent litigation experience.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.