Anoxia Medical v. Alembic LLC: Catheter Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Anoxia Medical Inc. filed suit in the Northern District of California alleging infringement of two catheter patents covering its APRO70 and APRO55 products against Alembic LLC. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs — bringing the action to a close in 267 days.
Catheter patent infringement action resolved by stipulated dismissal
Anoxia Medical Inc. filed this patent infringement action on July 7, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Alembic LLC. The suit asserted two patents — US11096703B2 and US11890024B2 — in connection with the APRO70 and APRO55 catheter products. Anoxia Medical was represented by Jonathan L. Ko and Sarah Sheldon Brooks of Venable LLP; Alembic LLC was represented by James William Hill and Richard M. Lehrer of FisherBroyles LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order, entered as a stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Civil L.R. 7-1(a)(5) and 7-12, reflects that both Anoxia Medical and Alembic LLC agreed to dismissal with prejudice of the action and all associated claims, counterclaims, and defenses, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on March 31, 2026, approximately 267 days after filing — a notably rapid resolution for a two-patent district court infringement suit. The speed and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before significant pretrial milestones, though the precise commercial or licensing terms, if any, are not reflected in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 267 days
267 days from filing to dismissal — a relatively swift resolution for district court patent litigation
US11096703B2 & US11890024B2 — APRO catheter technology patents
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing catheter products — particularly in the vascular access or interventional catheter segment — should assess these two Anoxia Medical patents before product launch or expansion. Both patents emerged from this litigation with no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no adverse merits determination, meaning their asserted scope stands unchallenged by the courts.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), under which dismissal is self-executing upon joint filing by all appearing parties. The 'with prejudice' designation is the operative legal consequence: Anoxia Medical is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Alembic. No merits determination — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — appears on the record, and the specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice is a jointly filed stipulation — no court order required for the dismissal itself, though the court may enter it on the docket. 'With prejudice' means Anoxia Medical cannot refile the same claims against Alembic on these patents. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses are extinguished. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Permanent bar on refiling same claimsAnoxia Medical's infringement claims permanently closed
Anoxia Medical brought the action asserting US11096703B2 and US11890024B2 against Alembic's APRO70 and APRO55 catheter products. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses Anoxia Medical from reasserting those specific claims against Alembic in a future action. The patents themselves remain in force and can be enforced against third parties not party to this stipulation.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesAlembic obtains finality — no adverse merits ruling
Alembic LLC exits the litigation without any court-determined finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity with respect to either patent. The dismissal with prejudice provides practical finality: Anoxia Medical cannot bring these same patent claims against Alembic again. Each party bears its own costs, so no fee award was entered against either side.
No infringement finding on the recordCatheter sector: patents intact, no claim construction precedent set
Because the case resolved before any claim construction, summary judgment, or merits ruling, US11096703B2 and US11890024B2 carry no adverse court interpretation that would weaken their enforceability. Competitors in the catheter and vascular access device space should note that both patents remain active enforcement vehicles. The rapid resolution and mutual cost-bearing arrangement may suggest a commercial accommodation, though the specific terms are not in the public record.
No claim construction — scope unlitigatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Anoxia Medical Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Alembic, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan L. Ko | Attorney | Counsel for Anoxia Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Sheldon Brooks | Attorney | Counsel for Anoxia Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Venable LLP | Law Firm | Representing Anoxia Medical Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James William Hill | Attorney | Counsel for Alembic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard M. Lehrer | Attorney | Counsel for Alembic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FisherBroyles LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alembic, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the catheter and vascular access device space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Anoxia Medical's catheter IP portfolio and the APRO70/APRO55 technology domain — relevant for R&D, product, and IP strategy teams.
Anoxia Medical's catheter patent filing activity and continuation strategy
The two asserted patents share sequential application numbers (US16/413935 and US17/384203), suggesting a deliberate portfolio-building approach around catheter technology. Monitoring Anoxia Medical's prosecution history and any pending continuations may reveal the intended claim scope and future enforcement targets in the vascular access space.
Portfolio continuations to watchFiling trends in interventional catheter design and vascular access technology
The APRO70 and APRO55 product line positions these patents within interventional or diagnostic catheter design. Tracking filing trends around catheter shaft construction, tip geometry, and introducer mechanics can identify the competitive IP density in this sub-segment and flag potential white-space opportunities for design differentiation.
Interventional catheter IP densityAlembic LLC's patent position in catheter and medical device R&D
Alembic LLC was named as the defendant in this catheter infringement action. Assessing Alembic's own patent filings and IP portfolio in the catheter and medical device space may reveal defensive IP assets, design-around patents, or cross-licensing leverage relevant to the broader competitive landscape.
Alembic LLC IP portfolioAdjacent R&D opportunities near APRO-style catheter architectures
With both Anoxia Medical patents covering specific catheter configurations, adjacent design spaces — such as alternative tip configurations, novel materials, or enhanced delivery mechanisms not claimed in US11096703B2 or US11890024B2 — may represent lower-risk R&D and patenting opportunities for catheter device innovators seeking to compete or collaborate in this segment.
Catheter design-around opportunitiesSimilar catheter and medical device patent cases in N.D. California
Explore related patent infringement actions in the catheter and vascular access device sector litigated in the Northern District of California and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the catheter device IP landscape
A two-patent infringement suit resolved in under nine months without a merits ruling carries meaningful signals for catheter device competitors and IP strategists.
Both catheter patents remain enforceable with no adverse court ruling
US11096703B2 and US11890024B2 exited this litigation without any claim construction or validity determination on the record. For competitors in the catheter and vascular access space, that means the scope and enforceability of these patents remain as asserted by Anoxia Medical — a meaningful risk factor for product teams.
Swift resolution with mutual cost-bearing suggests early commercial engagement
Dismissal within 267 days, with no cost award to either side, is consistent with parties reaching an accommodation before substantial litigation costs accumulated. This pattern typically signals that at least one party found continued litigation commercially unattractive — though the specific terms are not in the public record.
Anoxia v Alembic — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation filed by both parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Anoxia Medical asserted two patents: US11096703B2 (application no. US16/413935) and US11890024B2 (application no. US17/384203), both relating to the APRO70 and APRO55 catheter products. No court ruling on the validity or infringement of either patent was issued before the case was dismissed.
Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar: Anoxia Medical cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Alembic LLC based on US11096703B2 and US11890024B2. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this stipulation.
No. The case resolved in 267 days without any claim construction hearing, summary judgment ruling, or trial. There is no court-issued interpretation of the claims of US11096703B2 or US11890024B2 on the record from this litigation.
Both US11096703B2 and US11890024B2 remain in force and were not subjected to any adverse validity or claim-scope ruling in this action. For catheter and vascular access device manufacturers, the absence of any narrowing construction means FTO exposure under these patents is unchanged. Independent claim analysis and, potentially, IPR review should be considered by companies with overlapping product designs.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.