DiLorenzo Biomedical v. Medtronic: SCS Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC filed suit against Medtronic, Inc. in the District of Minnesota alleging infringement of two spinal cord stimulation patents by the RestoreSensor, Intellis, and Vanta SCS product lines. The case closed after 190 days when DiLorenzo voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before Medtronic filed any responsive pleading.
SCS patent claims against Medtronic end before Medtronic responds
DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC filed this patent infringement action in the District of Minnesota on October 31, 2024, asserting US6366813B1 and US8781597B2 against Medtronic, Inc. The accused products include the RestoreSensor, Intellis, and Vanta spinal cord stimulators — flagship devices in Medtronic’s neuromodulation portfolio. The patents in suit relate to spinal cord stimulation systems and methods, a technology domain in which Medtronic holds significant commercial and R&D position.
The case concluded on May 9, 2025, when DiLorenzo Biomedical filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Under that procedural rule, a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order only before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — a condition met here, as Medtronic had filed neither. Each side bears its own costs and fees, meaning no financial remedy exchanged hands on the public record.
At 190 days, the case resolved before reaching any contested motion practice, which is consistent with either a private settlement on undisclosed terms, a licensing resolution, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason for the withdrawal. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: DiLorenzo cannot re-file the same claims against Medtronic on these patents in federal court.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 190 days
190 days — resolved before any answer or summary judgment motion was filed
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before any response
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Medtronic had done neither, making this route available. The plaintiff’s choice to make the dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — rather than the default ‘without prejudice’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) — is a deliberate and consequential election, not an automatic outcome.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingWith-prejudice dismissal bars DiLorenzo from re-filing these claims
By dismissing with prejudice, DiLorenzo Biomedical permanently relinquished its right to assert US6366813B1 and US8781597B2 against Medtronic in federal court on these facts. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit. It suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution — whether a licensing agreement, lump-sum payment, or covenant not to sue — that made continued litigation unnecessary, though the public record is silent on terms.
Claims extinguished against MedtronicMedtronic exits without filing a single pleading or paying public costs
Medtronic, Inc. was dismissed before serving any answer, dispositive motion, or incurring publicly disclosed legal costs. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure means no fee-shifting award was entered against either side. For Medtronic, the with-prejudice designation provides finality on these specific patent claims — the RestoreSensor, Intellis, and Vanta product lines face no further threat from DiLorenzo under these two patents in this jurisdiction.
Full finality on US6366813 & US8781597Early exit leaves SCS patent landscape unresolved for the sector
Because no claim construction, validity ruling, or merits decision was issued, the patents’ scope and enforceability remain untested publicly. Other spinal cord stimulation device manufacturers cannot rely on any judicial ruling from this case as prior art or estoppel. Competitors of Medtronic in the SCS space — including Abbott, Boston Scientific, and newer entrants — should note that DiLorenzo’s patents may still be asserted against them independently of this dismissal.
No precedent set for SCS sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLC | Company | Biomedical patent licensing entity — holder of US6366813B1 and US8781597B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medtronic, Inc. — global medical device manufacturer, neuromodulation and SCS market leaderSearch 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 | Jason M. Zucchi | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald Abramson | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Stephen Werner | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William R. Woodford | Attorney | Counsel for DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Avantech Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Liston Abramson LLP | Law Firm | Representing DiLorenzo Biomedical, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Minnesota District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which is only available before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion — a procedural gateway Medtronic’s silence kept open. The plaintiff’s affirmative election of ‘with prejudice’ is the critical phrase: it transforms what would otherwise be a neutral exit into a permanent bar on re-filing these claims against Medtronic. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause is standard in voluntary dismissals and neither implies fault nor signals a contested fee dispute. No claim construction or validity finding was issued, leaving the patents’ scope legally unresolved.
US6366813B1 & US8781597B2 — spinal cord stimulation systems
US6366813B1 (Application No. US09/340326, filed approximately 1999) and US8781597B2 (Application No. US12/774550, filed approximately 2010) both fall within the domain of implantable neurostimulation. The earlier patent covers foundational spinal cord stimulation system architecture, while the later patent — filed over a decade after — suggests a continuation or improvement lineage incorporating adaptive or sensor-based stimulation features consistent with the RestoreSensor product’s position-sensing functionality.
Spinal cord stimulation is a multi-billion-dollar therapeutic segment with intense patent activity from Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. DiLorenzo’s decision to assert two patents spanning a decade of application filings against Medtronic’s three named SCS platforms suggests the portfolio was mapped carefully to the accused product architectures. For competitors developing next-generation SCS devices — particularly those incorporating closed-loop or sensor-based stimulation — both patents warrant detailed claim mapping before product launch.
Should your SCS product team run an FTO against US6366813 and US8781597?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising spinal cord stimulation devices — particularly those incorporating adaptive stimulation, patient-position sensing, or closed-loop feedback — should treat these two patents as live enforcement risk. The dismissal with prejudice covers only Medtronic; no court has invalidated or narrowed either patent’s claims. Startup neuromodulation teams, established players expanding SCS lines, and component suppliers to SCS OEMs are all within the potential enforcement perimeter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map US6366813B1 and US8781597B2 claim elements against your specific device architecture in minutes. Eureka identifies overlapping claims, surfaces prosecution history estoppel, flags family members in international jurisdictions, and benchmarks against the prior art landscape — giving your legal team a defensible starting point before clinical or commercial commitment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6366813B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar spinal cord stimulation patent cases in US District Courts
These cases involve spinal cord stimulation and neuromodulation patent assertions filed in US District Courts, sharing overlapping technology domains and enforcement patterns with this Minnesota action.
What this case signals for the neuromodulation IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit before any Medtronic pleading typically signals more than a simple walk-away — here is what IP teams should watch.
With-prejudice dismissal signals a likely private resolution with Medtronic
Plaintiffs rarely surrender the right to re-file without receiving something in return. The with-prejudice designation here — chosen voluntarily, not court-ordered — is consistent with a licensing deal, covenant not to sue, or lump-sum settlement. IP teams monitoring DiLorenzo’s portfolio activity should watch for subsequent licensing announcements or reduced enforcement posture.
US6366813 and US8781597 remain live against other SCS manufacturers
The dismissal with prejudice binds only the DiLorenzo–Medtronic relationship. Abbott Neuromodulation, Boston Scientific, Nalu Medical, and other spinal cord stimulation device makers remain potential targets. R&D and legal teams at companies developing SCS devices should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents before advancing to commercial launch.
DiLorenzo v Medtronic — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal means DiLorenzo Biomedical cannot re-file claims against Medtronic under US6366813B1 or US8781597B2 in federal court. However, the patents themselves remain valid and unlitigated — no court ruled on claim scope or validity — so DiLorenzo retains the right to enforce both patents against other defendants.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Filing a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice before any responsive pleading is the simplest and cleanest exit available to a plaintiff. The with-prejudice designation suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution — such as a license or covenant — though this cannot be confirmed from the docket.
The complaint identified the Medtronic RestoreSensor, Intellis, and Vanta spinal cord stimulators, along with other Medtronic products and related components, as the accused products. These devices span Medtronic’s rechargeable and non-rechargeable SCS platform portfolio.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only DiLorenzo’s claims against Medtronic. Neither patent was found invalid, not infringed, or unenforceable by any court. Both patents remain active and enforceable against other parties, subject to any remaining term and maintenance fee obligations.
Medtronic is headquartered in Fridley, Minnesota, making the District of Minnesota a plausible venue. Filing in a defendant’s home district is an unusual but not unprecedented plaintiff strategy — it may reflect confidence in the patents’ strength, a desire for early resolution, or tactical considerations around potential witness and evidence access in that jurisdiction.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.