Cutchins v. Bug Bite Thing — Case Dismissed After 175 Days
Inventor Linwood Cutchins filed a patent infringement action in the District of New Jersey against Bug Bite Thing, Inc., television personality Lori Greiner, and Dr. Mona Amin, asserting US11399979B2 covering an apparatus for removing debris from an organ. The case closed after 175 days with the case dismissed.
Individual inventor targets Bug Bite Thing and Shark Tank investors
On 28 November 2022, Linwood Cutchins filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Bug Bite Thing, Inc., Dr. Mona Amin, and Lori Greiner — a prominent Shark Tank investor — asserting infringement of US11399979B2, a patent directed to an apparatus for removing debris from an organ. The accused product category aligns with Bug Bite Thing's suction-based insect-bite relief device, which gained national visibility through Shark Tank.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' No verdict text is available in the public record, and no further detail regarding the grounds for dismissal — including whether it was with or without prejudice — is disclosed. The specific terms of the dismissal are not available in the accessible record.
The case resolved in approximately 175 days, a relatively short lifespan for a patent infringement action at the district court level. Whether the dismissal reflects a negotiated resolution, a procedural deficiency, or a merits ruling is not determinable from the public record. The absence of any verdict text leaves the precise disposition unclear.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 175 days
175 days from filing to dismissal in the District of New Jersey
US11399979B2 — Apparatus for removing debris from an organ
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing suction-based devices for removing insect venom, debris, or foreign material from skin should assess freedom-to-operate against US11399979B2. The patent is active, unadjudicated on the merits, and has already been the subject of district court litigation against a commercially successful product. R&D and product teams should map current device architectures against the patent's independent claims before launch or product iteration.
Official order — verbatim text
No verdict text is available in the public record for this case. The recorded Basis of Termination — 'Case Dismissed' — indicates the action was closed without a trial verdict or published merits ruling. The grounds, prejudice designation, and any ancillary terms of the dismissal are not disclosed in the accessible docket.
Case dismissed: what the recorded termination means for both parties
What 'Case Dismissed' means at district court level
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' A dismissal at the district court level ends the action before a final judgment on the merits, but its preclusive effect depends entirely on whether it was entered with or without prejudice — information not disclosed in the available public record. Neither the grounds nor the prejudice designation are ascertainable from the accessible docket.
Grounds not publicly disclosedThe prejudice distinction matters — and the record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claim and operates as a final judgment. A dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open to refile, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record does not specify which applies here. Parties and practitioners should treat the prejudice status as unconfirmed and consult the underlying docket directly.
Prejudice status unconfirmedBug Bite Thing and co-defendants exit the litigation
Bug Bite Thing, Inc., Lori Greiner, and Dr. Mona Amin are no longer defendants in this action following dismissal. Whether the dismissal carries any preclusive effect — foreclosing future infringement claims on US11399979B2 by this plaintiff — depends on the prejudice designation, which is not available in the public record. Ongoing product exposure to the asserted patent therefore cannot be confirmed or excluded on this record alone.
Liability not adjudicated on meritsUS11399979B2 remains in force; enforcement posture unclear
US11399979B2 has not been invalidated or adjudicated by this proceeding. Competitors and product teams operating in the suction-based body-debris removal device category should note that the patent remains active and no merits ruling has narrowed or confirmed its scope. The commercial risk profile of the patent is unchanged by this dismissal alone.
Patent validity unaffectedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linwood Cutchins | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bug Bite Thing, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dr. Mona Amin | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lori Greiner | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Linwood Cutchins | Attorney | Counsel for Linwood CutchinsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard H. Brown , III | Attorney | Counsel for Bug Bite Thing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Day Pitney LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bug Bite Thing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the suction-based personal care device space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Cutchins v. Bug Bite Thing — relevant to teams working on body-care, extraction, and suction device technologies.
Linwood Cutchins: inventor portfolio depth in extraction devices
US11399979B2 is the asserted patent, originating from application US14/489962. Investigating whether Cutchins holds continuation, divisional, or related family patents in the extraction apparatus domain can reveal the breadth of potential enforcement exposure for companies in adjacent product categories. A portfolio audit is recommended for any team active in suction or extraction-based consumer devices.
Monitor inventor filingsFiling trends in suction-based insect bite and body debris removal devices
The commercial success of Bug Bite Thing and similar products has likely stimulated patent filings in the suction-based skin treatment and venom extraction space. Tracking recent applications in this domain can identify emerging competitors, freedom-to-operate risks, and potential white-space opportunities for next-generation device architectures before they reach market.
Growing filing activityBug Bite Thing's own patent and IP position in the extraction device market
As a defendant in this action, Bug Bite Thing's own IP portfolio — including any design patents, utility applications, or trade dress registrations — shapes its competitive moat and litigation posture. Understanding their patent position helps competitors assess both infringement risk and potential cross-licensing leverage in the consumer health device category.
Defendant IP auditDesign-around and adjacent innovation near US11399979B2
With US11399979B2 unadjudicated and actively enforced, R&D teams should explore design-around approaches — alternative mechanisms for debris or venom removal that avoid the claimed apparatus configuration. Adjacent innovation areas such as enzymatic treatment, adhesive extraction patches, or ultrasonic-assisted removal may offer lower-risk development pathways in this growing consumer health segment.
Design-around potentialSimilar patent infringement cases: suction and body-care device disputes
Explore related patent infringement actions in the consumer health and personal care device sector filed in the District of New Jersey and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the personal care device IP landscape
A dismissed infringement action against a Shark Tank-backed product highlights individual-inventor enforcement risk in the consumer health device market.
Individual inventors actively enforce niche apparatus patents against viral consumer products
This case illustrates a recurring pattern: individual inventors asserting apparatus patents against consumer products that achieve rapid market penetration through media exposure. Companies benefiting from Shark Tank-style visibility face heightened infringement scrutiny. Pre-launch and post-investment FTO searches are commercially prudent for any device in this category.
Naming investors and brand ambassadors as co-defendants is an emerging litigation tactic
The inclusion of Lori Greiner and Dr. Mona Amin as named defendants alongside Bug Bite Thing suggests a strategy of targeting high-profile endorsers and investors. Companies and individuals associated with consumer product launches should assess whether their involvement could expose them to co-defendant risk in patent actions.
Cutchins v Bug — key questions answered
The case was dismissed. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' No verdict text is available in the public record, and the grounds and prejudice designation of the dismissal are not disclosed in the accessible docket. The case filed on 28 November 2022 and closed on 22 May 2023, lasting 175 days.
The asserted patent is US11399979B2, directed to an apparatus for removing debris from an organ. The underlying application number is US14/489962. The patent has not been invalidated or construed on the merits in this proceeding.
Lori Greiner is named as a co-defendant alongside Bug Bite Thing, Inc. and Dr. Mona Amin. The specific basis for her inclusion — whether as an investor, licensor, or distributor — is not detailed in the available public record. The plaintiff, Linwood Cutchins, asserted patent infringement of US11399979B2 against all three defendants.
No. The case was dismissed without any recorded merits ruling on validity or infringement. US11399979B2 remains in force and has not been adjudicated by any court on the available record. Companies in the suction-based personal care device sector should treat the patent as active and enforceable.
The dismissal does not extinguish US11399979B2. Whether the plaintiff may refile depends on the prejudice designation of the dismissal, which is not disclosed in the public record. Until confirmed otherwise, the patent remains a live enforcement risk for companies operating in the apparatus-for-removing-debris product category. An FTO analysis against current product lines is advisable.
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.