Decapolis Systems v. Texas Retina Associates — Consent Judgment after 246 days
Decapolis Systems, LLC brought a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Texas Retina Associates and Surgery Partners, Inc., asserting two healthcare IT patents covering apparatus and methods for processing and providing healthcare information. The case resolved by consent judgment in approximately eight months.
Healthcare IT patent dispute resolved by consent judgment in E.D. Texas
Decapolis Systems, LLC filed suit on 24 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00173), asserting infringement of US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 against Texas Retina Associates and Surgery Partners, Inc. Both patents relate to apparatus and methods for processing and/or providing healthcare information and healthcare-related information. Plaintiff was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC; defendants were represented by Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta PC.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order, however, states that the court accepted a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and dismissed all pending claims without prejudice — also directing the clerk to close both Case No. 2:22-CV-00173 and the related Case No. 2:22-CV-00407. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 25 January 2023, approximately eight months after filing — consistent with pre-trial resolution and before substantial merits litigation. What drove the parties to resolve at this stage, and whether any licensing or operational terms were agreed, is not disclosed in the publicly available record. The coordinated closure of two related case numbers suggests the resolution was part of a broader settlement framework spanning multiple defendants.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 246 days
246 days from filing to consent judgment — resolved before trial
US7490048B2 & US7464040B2 — Healthcare information processing apparatus and methods
Any healthcare provider, surgical facility operator, or healthcare IT vendor whose platform processes, transmits, or presents healthcare information should assess exposure to US7490048B2 and US7464040B2. The breadth of the claimed subject matter — apparatus and methods for processing and providing healthcare information — means that standard clinical and practice management systems could potentially fall within scope. The absence of a validity ruling in this case means neither patent has been judicially narrowed or invalidated.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order accepted a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, directing closure of both Case No. 2:22-CV-00173 and the related Case No. 2:22-CV-00407, with each party bearing its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. Both characterisations appear in the record; the specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties, formally ending the litigation with the force of a judicial order. It differs from a private settlement in that the court itself enters the judgment, making it enforceable as a court order. The docket order here references a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal without prejudice; the recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered, binding resolutionDecapolis Systems secures a court-entered resolution
As plaintiff and patent holder, Decapolis Systems obtained a consent judgment — a formal court-entered outcome — without proceeding to trial. The patents US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 were not adjudicated on the merits, meaning their validity and infringement scope remain untested by this proceeding. Whether the resolution involved any licensing arrangement or other commercial terms is not disclosed in the available record.
Patents not invalidatedTexas Retina Associates and Surgery Partners avoid merits adjudication
The defendants — Texas Retina Associates and Surgery Partners, Inc. — resolved the case by consent judgment before trial, avoiding a merits ruling on infringement or validity. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The docket order also closed a related case (No. 2:22-CV-00407), suggesting the resolution encompassed a broader group of defendants. The specific obligations accepted by the defendants, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
No merits adjudicationHealthcare IT operators face continued patent exposure
US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 claim apparatus and methods for healthcare information processing — a function broadly deployed across clinical and surgical practices. The consent judgment does not resolve the patents' validity, leaving their enforceability intact for future assertion. Healthcare IT vendors and operator groups should assess whether their platforms fall within the claims of these patents, particularly where coordinated multi-defendant campaigns are a known litigation strategy in this space.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Decapolis Systems, LLC | Company | Healthcare IT patent assertion entity — holder of US7490048B2 and US7464040B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Texas Retina Associates | Company | Texas Retina Associates (ophthalmology practice) and Surgery Partners, Inc. (surgical facilities operator)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Surgery Partners, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Decapolis Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rene A. Vazquez | Attorney | Counsel for Decapolis Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Decapolis Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Elder Barnett | Attorney | Counsel for Texas Retina AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta PC | Law Firm | Representing Texas Retina AssociatesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the healthcare information processing patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Decapolis Systems' assertion of US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 against clinical and surgical facility operators.
Decapolis Systems' healthcare IT assertion portfolio
Decapolis Systems holds at least two granted US patents covering healthcare information processing apparatus and methods, both originating from early 2000s applications. Understanding the full scope of the Decapolis portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications — is essential for healthcare IT operators assessing long-term exposure beyond these two asserted patents.
PAE portfolio riskFiling trends in healthcare information processing systems
The apparatus and method claims asserted here span a technology domain that has seen sustained filing activity as healthcare IT platforms have modernised. Tracking current filing trends in clinical data processing, EHR integration, and healthcare information exchange reveals where the next generation of patent risk is forming — and which technology choices carry the highest exposure for operators.
Healthcare IT filing trendsSurgery Partners' patent position in healthcare IT
Surgery Partners, Inc. operates a large network of surgical facilities and ambulatory surgery centres. Assessing Surgery Partners' own patent filings and technology investments in healthcare information systems can reveal whether the company has developed proprietary defensive IP — or whether it relies predominantly on third-party platforms that may carry unresolved patent exposure.
Defendant defensive IPAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7490048 and US7464040
The claimed inventions focus on processing and providing healthcare information — a domain where AI-assisted clinical decision support, interoperability APIs, and patient data exchange now represent rapidly expanding R&D frontiers. Mapping the claim boundaries of US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 against these emerging application areas can reveal white space for design-around strategies or novel filings that avoid the asserted patents.
Design-around opportunitySimilar healthcare IT patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving healthcare information processing patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas — a key venue for healthcare IT patent assertions.
What this case signals for the healthcare IT patent landscape
Decapolis Systems' coordinated action across multiple defendants highlights an active assertion campaign targeting healthcare information processing technology.
Multi-defendant campaign signals broad assertion risk for healthcare operators
The simultaneous closure of two related case numbers — 2:22-CV-00173 and 2:22-CV-00407 — suggests Decapolis Systems pursued coordinated litigation across multiple defendant groups. Healthcare providers and surgical facility operators using third-party healthcare information systems should treat this pattern as a signal of broader assertion risk across the sector.
Pre-trial consent judgment leaves patent validity intact for future suits
Because the case resolved by consent judgment without merits adjudication, US7490048B2 and US7464040B2 emerge from this litigation with their validity and claim scope untested. Any healthcare IT operator relying on the same or similar technology should conduct a formal FTO analysis against both patents before assuming the Decapolis portfolio is commercially neutralised.
Decapolis v Texas — key questions answered
The case closed on 25 January 2023 via a consent judgment, approximately 246 days after filing. The docket order accepted a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal and directed closure of both Case No. 2:22-CV-00173 and the related Case No. 2:22-CV-00407. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Decapolis Systems asserted two patents: US7490048B2 (application No. US09/987226) and US7464040B2 (application No. US09/737348). Both patents relate to apparatus and methods for processing and/or providing healthcare information and healthcare-related information. Neither patent's validity or infringement scope was adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding.
The named defendants were Texas Retina Associates and Surgery Partners, Inc. The docket order also references the simultaneous closure of Case No. 2:22-CV-00407, which involved Steward Health Care Network, Inc. and Steward Health Care System LLC as stipulating parties, suggesting a coordinated multi-defendant resolution.
The consent judgment does not constitute a merits ruling on the validity or infringement of US7490048B2 or US7464040B2. Both patents emerge from this litigation with their granted claims intact and unnarrated by any judicial validity determination. They remain potentially enforceable against other parties in the healthcare IT sector.
No fee award was made. The docket order expressly states that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was made, and no fee-shifting order was entered in favour of either party.
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.