Angel Eyes Life Medical v. Arthur Lih: Choking Device Patent Action Dismissed
Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc. and two co-plaintiffs sued Arthur Lih dba LifeVac in the Northern District of Texas, asserting US10052115B2 covering a choking intervention device. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 68 days after filing — before the defendant had answered or filed any dispositive motion.
Pre-answer exit: plaintiffs drop choking-device suit in 68 days
On April 11, 2025, Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc. (dba Angel Eyes-Med), joined by Shenzhen Chuangxin Technologies Co. Ltd. (dba MaSaKeys) and Plaxtron Industrial M. Sdn. Bhd. (dba MM LifeMed), filed a patent infringement action against Arthur Lih dba LifeVac in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, before Judge Jane J. Boyle. The suit centred on US10052115B2, a patent covering a choking intervention device and method of use, a technology segment in which LifeVac is a commercially active brand.
The case closed on June 18, 2025, when the plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That procedural mechanism is only available before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — and the court record confirms the defendant had not yet done either. The dismissal is recorded as without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs formally retain the right to refile the same claims at a later date.
A 68-day lifecycle ending in a pre-answer voluntary dismissal is notably short and suggests the action was resolved — or strategically withdrawn — before substantive litigation costs accumulated on either side. The absence of any defendant law firm or agent in the public record is consistent with a defendant who had not yet engaged litigation counsel. What remains unknown is whether a private settlement, licensing negotiation, or a reassessment of claim strength drove the dismissal; the public record does not disclose any terms.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 68 days
68-day case duration — resolved before defendant responded to the complaint
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): the self-executing dismissal notice
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Arthur Lih had not yet responded, the plaintiffs exercised this right unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and the dismissal took effect automatically on filing — closing the case in one procedural step.
Pre-answer self-executing dismissalThe record states ‘without prejudice’ — but the distinction matters
The dismissal notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiffs retain the legal right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Arthur Lih. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently extinguished those claims. However, the public record does not disclose whether any private agreement — such as a settlement or licence — imposes practical constraints that make refiling unlikely regardless of the formal legal position.
Refiling right preservedLifeVac exits without admissions — but cloud remains
Arthur Lih dba LifeVac obtains a clean exit from this specific action with no adverse finding, no injunction, and no damages award. No answer was filed, so no invalidity or non-infringement positions have been placed on the record. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the infringement assertion under US10052115B2 has not been extinguished — future enforcement action by the same plaintiffs remains a legal possibility.
No merits adjudicationUnresolved IP creates ongoing uncertainty for the anti-choking device market
The withdrawal without prejudice leaves US10052115B2 in an unresolved posture against LifeVac and its product category. Competitors and distributors in the anti-choking device space — a commercially visible consumer safety segment — should note that the patent’s enforceability was never tested in this action. The absence of a merits ruling means any FTO analysis for similar devices should still account for the asserted claims of this patent.
Patent enforceability untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc | Company | Medical device patent holder — choking intervention technology (US10052115B2)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Arthur Lih | Individual | Arthur Lih dba LifeVac — maker of anti-choking airway clearance devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas E. Najera | Attorney | Counsel for Angel Eyes Life Medical IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Tiewei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Angel Eyes Life Medical IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Angel Eyes Life Medical IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jane J Boyle | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely and confirms that no answer or summary judgment motion had been served — establishing the procedural precondition without ambiguity. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves the plaintiffs’ right to bring the same infringement claims again, distinguishing this outcome from a final adjudication on the merits. For Arthur Lih, the exit is clean in the immediate term but does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or patent invalidity.
US10052115B2 — Choking Intervention Device and Method of Use
US10052115B2 (application number US14/264590) covers a choking intervention device and its method of use — a category of airway-clearance apparatus designed to dislodge foreign body obstructions. Patents in this space typically protect mechanical suction or pressure-differential mechanisms that operate without requiring the user to perform abdominal thrusts. The patent’s claims were asserted by three co-plaintiff entities, suggesting it may underpin a shared commercial or licensing programme across multiple branded product lines.
The anti-choking device market has attracted commercial attention from consumer safety-focused brands, of which LifeVac is among the most publicly visible. A patent covering the device and its method of use is a broad asset capable of being asserted across a range of competitive products. Because this action was dismissed without a merits ruling, US10052115B2 has not been tested for validity or infringement scope in court — meaning it retains its full presumption of validity and represents a live risk for any party commercialising similar airway-clearance technology.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10052115B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, distributing, or retailing anti-choking or airway-clearance devices should treat US10052115B2 as a live enforcement risk. The patent was actively asserted as recently as 2025, is held by a multi-entity group with apparent commercial intent, and has never been invalidated or found not infringed. The scope of ‘choking intervention device and method of use’ is broad enough to implicate suction-based, thrust-based, and hybrid mechanical designs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US10052115B2’s claim set against your product specifications, identify file-history limitations that might narrow enforceability, surface related continuations or family members held by the co-plaintiff entities, and benchmark your design against prior art cited during prosecution. For a patent in active litigation with multiple asserting parties, a structured FTO is a material risk-reduction step before any product launch or distribution agreement in this category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10052115B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: choking device and medical device IP
Cases involving medical device patent assertions in the Northern District of Texas, particularly in the airway-clearance and consumer safety device category.
What this case signals for the anti-choking device IP landscape
A pre-answer exit in a medical device patent suit rarely signals the end of a dispute — it often signals a pause.
Pre-answer dismissals often precede licensing deals or renewed filings
When plaintiffs exit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant has even appeared, it typically suggests either a swift resolution off the record or a tactical recalibration. In either scenario, the underlying patent — US10052115B2 — remains active and enforceable. Monitoring the patent for continuation filings or new assertions is advisable for any party in the choking-device space.
Multiple co-plaintiffs signals a coordinated IP enforcement posture
Three corporate entities joined as co-plaintiffs: Angel Eyes-Med, MaSaKeys, and MM LifeMed. This structure suggests coordinated IP enforcement or shared ownership interests in US10052115B2. Product teams selling or distributing anti-choking devices should assess whether any of these entities hold related continuation patents or design rights that could be asserted independently.
Angel v Arthur — key questions answered
Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc. and two co-plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against Arthur Lih dba LifeVac in the Northern District of Texas on April 11, 2025. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on June 18, 2025, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant had filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The case lasted 68 days.
The asserted patent is US10052115B2 (application number US14/264590), covering a choking intervention device and method of use thereof. The patent was asserted by three co-plaintiffs: Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc., Shenzhen Chuangxin Technologies Co. Ltd. dba MaSaKeys, and Plaxtron Industrial M. Sdn. Bhd. dba MM LifeMed.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the plaintiffs chose to end the case before the defendant responded. ‘Without prejudice’ means the plaintiffs retain the legal right to refile the same patent infringement claims in the future. It is not a finding of non-infringement or invalidity, and does not resolve the underlying dispute on its merits.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs are not barred from refiling the same claims under US10052115B2 against Arthur Lih dba LifeVac. Note that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two dismissal rule’ in Rule 41(a)(1)(B), which is a relevant consideration for litigation strategy monitoring.
US10052115B2 covers a choking intervention device and its method of use — a broad claim scope that could implicate competing airway-clearance products. LifeVac is a prominent brand in this consumer safety segment. Because the patent’s validity and infringement scope were never adjudicated in this action, it retains its presumption of validity and represents a live FTO risk for other manufacturers, distributors, and retailers in the anti-choking device market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.