Bellinger v. CureWave Lasers: Laser Therapy Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Gary Bellinger v. CureWave Lasers, LLC |
| Case Number | 3:23-cv-00844 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Duration | April 21, 2023 – March 27, 2025 706 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Dismissed With Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | High-intensity laser therapy systems |
Case Overview
A patent infringement lawsuit targeting high-intensity laser therapy technology has concluded with a mutual stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that carries significant strategic weight for both the medical device sector and the broader IP litigation community. In Gary Bellinger v. CureWave Lasers, LLC (Case No. 3:23-cv-00844), plaintiff Gary Bellinger alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,120 B1, covering a high-intensity laser therapy method and apparatus. After 706 days of litigation, both parties jointly agreed to dismiss all claims with prejudice, foreclosing any future re-litigation of the same issues.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
The named inventor and patent holder asserting rights under U.S. Patent No. 10,589,120 B1, covering a high-intensity laser therapy method and apparatus.
🛡️ Defendant
The primary entity named, involved in high-intensity laser therapy technology. Co-defendants included Laser Concepts, LLC and individual Daniel Herbert.
Patents at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,589,120 B1, covering a high-intensity laser therapy method and apparatus — a technology class with significant clinical and commercial relevance.
- • US 10,589,120 B1 — High-intensity laser therapy method and apparatus
Developing a new laser therapy device?
Check if your high-intensity laser therapy device might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded on March 27, 2025, via a Mutual Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — with all claims dismissed with prejudice. No damages award, injunctive relief, or royalty determination is reflected in the public record. Critically, the dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, preventing Bellinger from re-filing suit against these defendants on the same patent claims.
Key Legal Issues
The central legal dispute concerned whether the defendants’ laser therapy products and methods fell within the scope of the ‘120 patent’s claims. While specific rulings are not public, typical issues in such cases include claim construction, infringement analysis (literal or under the doctrine of equivalents), and validity defenses (e.g., prior art, obviousness). The filing of an amended complaint in December 2023, along with a robust four-firm defense structure, suggests that defendants mounted a multi-pronged defense strategy, potentially including invalidity counterclaims, before the parties arrived at this consensual dismissal.
Filing a laser therapy patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights crucial IP risks in the high-intensity laser therapy market. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 47 related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in laser therapy patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
High-intensity laser therapy methods & apparatus
1 Patent at Issue
US 10,589,120 B1 in laser therapy
Design-Around Options
Available for specific parameters
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Mutual Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals with prejudice permanently bar re-litigation — a powerful settlement lever in protracted patent disputes.
Search related case law →Multi-defendant cases involving related corporate entities require careful coordination of defense strategy across firms.
Explore precedents →For R&D Teams
Conduct FTO analysis covering both method and apparatus claims before commercializing HILT products.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Document design decisions and prior art references contemporaneously to support invalidity defenses if needed.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.