DiLorenzo Biomedical v. LivaNova: Closed-Loop Neurostimulation Dispute Ends in Prejudiced Dismissal
DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC filed suit in the Southern District of Texas asserting three patents covering closed-loop intracranial and sympathetic neuromodulation systems against LivaNova, Inc. and LivaNova USA, Inc. The case resolved 352 days after filing when plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, permanently closing the claims.
Three Neurostimulation Patents, One Stipulated End: DiLorenzo v. LivaNova
DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC filed Case No. 4:23-cv-01800 in the Southern District of Texas on May 17, 2023, asserting infringement of US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1 against LivaNova, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary LivaNova USA, Inc. The asserted patents cover closed-loop intracranial stimulation systems for neurological disease control and closed-loop sympathetic neuromodulation for affect regulation — technology squarely relevant to LivaNova’s implantable neurostimulation device portfolio.
The case closed on May 3, 2024, 352 days after filing, when DiLorenzo Biomedical filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The basis of termination — dismissal with prejudice — is legally significant: it extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to reassert the same claims against LivaNova on the same patents. This outcome differs from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which would have preserved the plaintiff’s ability to refile.
The 352-day timeline suggests the parties engaged in substantive pre-trial activity before reaching this resolution — consistent with post-Markman settlement dynamics or licensing negotiations conducted under litigation pressure. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or financial settlement accompanied the dismissal, which is common when dismissal is stipulated jointly. What drove the prejudiced resolution — claim construction risk, validity concerns, or a commercial deal — remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 352 days
352 days — above median for patent cases resolved pre-trial in S.D. Texas
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: a permanent close
A dismissal with prejudice filed by stipulation means both parties agreed to end the litigation permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this bars DiLorenzo Biomedical from ever refiling the same infringement claims against LivaNova on US7209787B2, US6366813B1, or US9345880B1. The stipulation format, signed by plaintiff’s counsel, suggests the termination was consensual rather than court-ordered.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissalDiLorenzo forfeits future claims against LivaNova on these patents
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, DiLorenzo Biomedical permanently surrendered its right to pursue LivaNova for infringement of the three asserted patents. The patents themselves remain in force — they have not been invalidated — so DiLorenzo retains the ability to enforce them against third parties. Whether a license fee or settlement payment was secured in exchange is not disclosed in the public record.
Patents survive; claims against LivaNova extinguishedLivaNova secures permanent closure on these patent claims
LivaNova, Inc. and LivaNova USA, Inc. benefit from the with-prejudice disposition: DiLorenzo cannot re-assert US7209787B2, US6366813B1, or US9345880B1 against them in future proceedings. This provides commercial certainty for LivaNova’s neurostimulation product lines, though it does not constitute a judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity that could be used offensively in other proceedings.
No re-filing risk on these three patentsSettlement-adjacent resolution — standard risk for neurotech IP
Stipulated with-prejudice dismissals following 352 days of litigation are frequently, though not exclusively, associated with confidential licensing agreements. For competitors and investors in the closed-loop neurostimulation space, the outcome signals that DiLorenzo’s patent portfolio commands enough validity credibility to negotiate — but that LivaNova did not face a public merits ruling. Third parties operating in this space should treat the underlying patents as still-active enforcement risk.
Active enforcement risk for neurotech sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC | Company | Medical device IP licensing entity — holder of US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Livanova, Inc. | Company | LivaNova, Inc. and LivaNova USA, Inc. — commercial manufacturer of implantable neurostimulation devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | LivaNova USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alex G. Patchen | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Guerrero Liston | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gina K. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald Abramson | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wasif H. Qureshi | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jackson Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Liston Abramson LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin C Elacqua | Attorney | Counsel for Livanova, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karrie Elizabeth Wheatley | Attorney | Counsel for Livanova, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn Ann Quisenberry | Attorney | Counsel for Livanova, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Livanova, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Livanova, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Andrew S Hanen | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records a plaintiff-filed stipulation of dismissal rather than a contested ruling. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it reflects a final adjudication on the right to bring these claims, even absent a merits hearing. For DiLorenzo, the stipulation closes enforcement options against LivaNova on these three patents. For LivaNova, it confers preclusive protection without requiring it to win on invalidity or non-infringement — a commercially efficient outcome that avoids any claim construction record that could be used against it in future disputes.
US7209787B2, US6366813B1 & US9345880B1 — Closed-Loop Neurostimulation Systems
The three asserted patents span two foundational product concepts: apparatus and methods for closed-loop intracranial stimulation optimised for neurological disease management (US7209787B2 and US6366813B1), and closed-loop feedback-driven sympathetic neuromodulation for affect control (US9345880B1). The application dates — derived from application numbers US10/718248, US09/340326, and US11/333979 — suggest priority chains reaching back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, a formative period for implantable neural feedback technology. These are not peripheral design patents; they address core system architecture for sense-and-stimulate neurostimulation loops.
For the implantable neurostimulation sector, foundational closed-loop patents of this vintage represent a strategic moat. LivaNova’s VNS Therapy and related platform products operate in precisely the therapeutic space these patents describe. Any company developing next-generation closed-loop neuromodulation — including deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, or responsive neurostimulation systems — should assess freedom to operate against this patent family. The fact that these patents survived to assertion without earlier challenge suggests they have not been the subject of successful IPR or ex parte reexamination, increasing their relevance as licensing leverage.
Should you run an FTO against US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1?
Any R&D team or product group developing closed-loop neurostimulation systems — including responsive DBS, VNS, or autonomic neuromodulation devices — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against DiLorenzo Biomedical’s three-patent portfolio. The patents cover both intracranial and sympathetic neuromodulation architectures, which span multiple commercially active device categories. Given that these patents were never invalidated in this proceeding, they remain enforceable against third parties and carry an established litigation pedigree.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1 against your product specifications, identify continuation and divisional family members that may not yet have been asserted, and surface prior art that could support an IPR petition if licensing demands are received. For medical device companies at the design or regulatory stage, early FTO analysis against this portfolio is commercially prudent given the with-prejudice dismissal creates no safe harbour for competitors.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7209787B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Closed-Loop Neurostimulation Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving closed-loop neurostimulation and implantable neural feedback technology in U.S. district courts, including S.D. Texas.
What this case signals for the closed-loop neurostimulation IP landscape
DiLorenzo’s three-patent assertion against a major neurotech OEM illustrates the continuing exposure of implantable stimulation device makers to foundational IP claims.
Dismissal with prejudice does not mean the patents are safe for third parties
US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1 were never adjudicated on the merits. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was issued. Companies developing closed-loop neurostimulation devices should treat these patents as live enforcement risks requiring proper FTO analysis before product launch or investment.
LivaNova secured certainty — but without a precedential ruling
The with-prejudice dismissal protects LivaNova specifically, but produces no public claim construction, validity ruling, or non-infringement finding that competitors could rely upon. Any company that benchmarks LivaNova’s commercial freedom against this outcome is doing so without a judicial record to support that inference.
DiLorenzo v Livanova — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 3, 2024, following a stipulation of dismissal filed by plaintiff DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC. This permanently bars DiLorenzo from refiling the same infringement claims against LivaNova on the three asserted patents. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
DiLorenzo Biomedical asserted three patents: US7209787B2 (closed-loop intracranial stimulation for neurological disease), US6366813B1 (closed-loop neurostimulation systems and methods), and US9345880B1 (closed-loop sympathetic neuromodulation for affect control). All three patents relate to implantable neural feedback stimulation technology.
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes DiLorenzo Biomedical’s right to sue LivaNova on these specific patents. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — they were not invalidated in this proceeding. DiLorenzo retains the right to assert US7209787B2, US6366813B1, and US9345880B1 against other parties in future litigation.
The public docket does not disclose whether a financial settlement or licensing agreement accompanied the stipulated dismissal with prejudice. This type of resolution — a consensual stipulated dismissal after approximately 352 days of litigation — is frequently, though not exclusively, associated with confidential settlement or licensing arrangements. The terms, if any, are not publicly available.
LivaNova, Inc. and LivaNova USA, Inc. are protected from re-assertion of these three specific patents by DiLorenzo Biomedical. However, the dismissal does not constitute a judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity, and produces no precedent that other parties — or LivaNova itself in disputes with other patent holders — could rely upon. Competitors should not treat this outcome as a general clearance of the closed-loop neurostimulation patent landscape.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.