Apple, Inc. v. Wrist SP Biotech, LLC
Infringement action filed 25 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 29 Nov 2023, with US9392970B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9392970B2
- Application no.
- US14/238005
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00937
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Richard G. Andrews
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 25 Aug 2023 – 29 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 96 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Apple Watch
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Biotelemetry system
The invention provides a biotelemetry system for disposition on the wrist. The device of the invention may be portable, untethered and in some instances, disposable. The features of the wrist biotelemetry system make it effective in stable, chronic or emergency medical settings.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Jul 2016
- Earliest priority
- 10 Aug 2011
- Est. expiry
- 6 Mar 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- VASTOLA, MARK
- Classification
- A61B5/1455A61B5/00A61B5/01A61B5/021A61B5/08A61B5/024
- Prosecution counsel
- DT Ward, PC
- Examiner
- WINAKUR, ERIC
Parties of record
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew Mark Moshos · Anna Dwyer · Bindu Ann George Palapura · David Ellis Moore · Garland Stephens · Jeff Risher · Robert Magee
- Firm
- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
Wrist SP Biotech, LLC
- Core tech
- A61B5/1455A61B5/00A61B5/01A61B5/021
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Mark Moshos | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Anna Dwyer | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Bindu Ann George Palapura | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| David Ellis Moore | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Garland Stephens | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeff Risher | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Robert Magee | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“NOW COMES Plaintiff, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all claims asserted in the abovereferenced matter.”
Case 1:23-cv-00937 · D. Del. · closed 29 November 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-00937?
1:23-cv-00937 is a patent infringement action brought by Apple, Inc. against Wrist SP Biotech, LLC, filed on 25 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 29 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00937?
US9392970B2 (“Biotelemetry system”), assigned to WRIST SP BIOTECH, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Apple Watch.
How was case 1:23-cv-00937 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “NOW COMES Plaintiff, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, all claims asserted in the abovereferenced matter.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:23-cv-00937 take?
96 calendar days, from filing on 25 Aug 2023 to closure on 29 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00937?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Andrew Mark Moshos, Anna Dwyer, Bindu Ann George Palapura, David Ellis Moore, Garland Stephens, Jeff Risher and Robert Magee are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00937 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.