AKHA LLC v. Pac Dent Inc.: AntiSplatr Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
AKHA LLC and AJK Engineering Services filed suit against dental products company Pac Dent Inc. in the Central District of California, asserting three patents covering The AntiSplatr dental device. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal after 263 days, with no merits ruling on the public record.
Three-patent dental device suit ends in voluntary dismissal
On January 12, 2024, AKHA LLC and co-plaintiff AJK Engineering Services, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Pac Dent Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00078). The plaintiffs asserted three patents — US8784102B1, USRE046696E, and US9962236B1 — all relating to The AntiSplatr, a dental device designed to manage fluid or debris splatter during dental procedures.
The case closed on October 1, 2024, via voluntary dismissal initiated by the plaintiffs. The docket records the basis of termination as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying whether it was with or without prejudice. That distinction carries significant legal weight: dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiffs’ right to refile, while dismissal with prejudice would bar future claims on the same patents against the same defendant. The public record does not resolve which applies here.
At 263 days, the case resolved well before any trial date, which is consistent with pre-trial negotiation, a confidential settlement, or a strategic decision to withdraw. The involvement of a reissued patent (USRE046696E) alongside two original utility patents suggests a deliberate claim-broadening strategy by the patent holders. What drove the voluntary dismissal — whether a licensing agreement, design-around, or litigation cost calculus — remains unknown from public filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 263 days
263 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early negotiation or settlement
Voluntarily dismissed: what this resolution means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal: plaintiffs chose to end the case
A voluntary dismissal is a procedural step initiated by the plaintiff, not a ruling on the merits. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order under certain conditions. Critically, the public record here does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a distinction that determines whether AKHA LLC and AJK Engineering can refile these same claims against Pac Dent.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiffs’ ability to refile — the three asserted patents remain enforceable and could be re-asserted in a new action. Dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar the plaintiffs from pursuing the same claims against Pac Dent. The docket records only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without further specification, meaning practitioners cannot determine from public filings alone which outcome applies here.
Prejudice status unconfirmedPac Dent avoids a merits ruling — but uncertainty may remain
Pac Dent secured a close of the litigation without any finding of infringement or validity. However, absent a dismissal with prejudice or a formal license, the underlying patent risk from US8784102B1, USRE046696E, and US9962236B1 is not eliminated. If the dismissal was without prejudice, Pac Dent could face re-filed claims on these same patents. A comprehensive freedom-to-operate review would be prudent.
No infringement findingAntiSplatr IP portfolio remains active in the dental device market
The three asserted patents — including a reissued patent suggesting intentional claim broadening — signal an active IP enforcement posture by AKHA LLC and AJK Engineering. Other dental device manufacturers selling splatter-control or fluid-management products should treat this portfolio as live enforcement risk. The voluntary dismissal without a merits ruling does not diminish the patents’ legal standing or the plaintiffs’ apparent willingness to litigate.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AKHA LLC | Company | Dental device IP holders — asserting US8784102B1, USRE046696E, and US9962236B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Ajk Engineering Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Pac Dent Inc. | Company | Pac Dent Inc. — dental products company accused of infringing AntiSplatr patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy E Burke | Attorney | Counsel for AKHA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anooj Mayur Patel | Attorney | Counsel for AKHA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elodie Marie Bardon | Attorney | Counsel for AKHA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc E. Hankin | Attorney | Counsel for AKHA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hankin Patent Law APC | Law Firm | Representing AKHA LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | K. David Crockett | Attorney | Counsel for Pac Dent Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crockett & Crockett PC | Law Firm | Representing Pac Dent Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text — ‘This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety’ — confirms a plaintiff-initiated close of all claims across all three asserted patents against Pac Dent Inc. The phrase ‘in its entirety’ forecloses any partial survival of claims on the docket. However, the absence of explicit prejudice language means practitioners must look beyond the verdict text to the full dismissal order to determine whether the plaintiffs’ right to refile is preserved. No court finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction was issued.
US8784102B1, USRE046696E & US9962236B1 — AntiSplatr dental device patents
The three asserted patents — US8784102B1 (application no. US13/247941), USRE046696E (application no. US15/191248), and US9962236B1 (application no. US15/253442) — collectively cover The AntiSplatr, a dental device directed at controlling splatter, fluid, and debris during dental procedures. The presence of a reissued patent (USRE046696E) is particularly notable: reissue proceedings before the USPTO allow applicants to correct errors or broaden claims, suggesting the patent holders actively refined their IP position to maximise enforcement coverage.
For the dental device sector, a coordinated three-patent family covering a specific procedural instrument represents a meaningful enforcement risk. The reissued patent in particular may carry broader independent claims than the original grants, potentially capturing a wider range of competitive products. Manufacturers offering splatter-shield, fluid-isolation, or debris-management accessories for dental handpieces or high-speed instruments should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against all three patent numbers, paying particular attention to the reissued claims of USRE046696E.
Should you run an FTO against US8784102B1, USRE046696E, and US9962236B1?
Any dental device manufacturer or distributor offering products that control fluid, debris, or splatter during dental procedures should treat these three patents as active enforcement risk. The voluntary dismissal against Pac Dent did not invalidate any claim, and the patent holders have demonstrated a willingness to litigate in federal court. Products in adjacent categories — including dental dam accessories, isolation devices, and high-volume evacuation attachments — should be assessed against the claim scope of all three patents, with particular attention to the broadened claims of the reissued USRE046696E.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their device designs against the full claim trees of US8784102B1, USRE046696E, and US9962236B1 in minutes. Eureka identifies family members, continuation filings, and citation networks that may extend the risk perimeter beyond these three patent numbers. For in-house counsel at dental product companies, Eureka’s monitoring tools can flag new filings by AKHA LLC or AJK Engineering Services, providing early warning of future enforcement activity before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8784102B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar dental device patent infringement cases in C.D. California
Cases involving dental device patents and voluntary dismissals in the Central District of California, relevant to practitioners monitoring AntiSplatr IP enforcement.
What this case signals for the dental device IP landscape
A three-patent enforcement action covering a specialised dental device reveals an active assertion strategy worth monitoring across the dental products sector.
Reissued patents signal deliberate claim-broadening before litigation
The inclusion of USRE046696E — a reissued patent — alongside two original utility patents suggests the patent holders pursued broader claim scope specifically to strengthen enforcement leverage. Competitors in the dental splatter-control device space should map their products against the reissued claims, which may extend beyond the original patent’s scope.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice status leaves Pac Dent exposed
Where a dismissal basis is silent on prejudice, defendants in the Central District of California should obtain explicit written confirmation of the prejudice status. Without a dismissal with prejudice or a signed license, the underlying patent risk from all three asserted patents technically persists and could support a re-filed action.
AKHA v Pac — key questions answered
AKHA LLC and AJK Engineering Services asserted three patents: US8784102B1, the reissued USRE046696E, and US9962236B1. All three relate to The AntiSplatr dental device. The reissued patent suggests the plaintiffs pursued broadened claim scope before bringing suit.
The public docket records the basis of termination as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying whether it was with or without prejudice. This distinction is legally significant: dismissal without prejudice would allow the plaintiffs to refile, while dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar the same claims against Pac Dent. Practitioners should consult the full dismissal order for clarification.
The AntiSplatr is a dental device designed to manage splatter, fluid, and debris during dental procedures. It is the subject of a multi-patent portfolio held by AKHA LLC and AJK Engineering Services, Inc., covering both original utility patents and a reissued patent with potentially broadened claim scope.
Reissued patents result from USPTO reissue proceedings that can correct errors in or broaden the original patent’s claims. Including USRE046696E alongside two standard utility patents suggests the plaintiffs deliberately widened their claim scope to strengthen enforcement leverage. Competitors should map their products against the reissued claims specifically, as they may extend beyond the scope of the original grant.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.), one of the busiest federal patent dockets in the country. C.D. Cal. is a plaintiff-friendly venue for IP actions involving California-based companies. The case closed after 263 days via voluntary dismissal, before any substantive court ruling on the patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.