Encelion v. Brand Value Growth: Pulse Sensor Patent Settled in 97 Days
Encelion LLC filed suit against Brand Value Growth LLC in the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of US11471072B2, a patent covering pulse sensor systems and methods. The parties reached a settlement in principle within 97 days of filing, with the court discontinuing the action without prejudice pending consummation of terms.
Pulse sensor patent dispute resolves in under 100 days
Encelion LLC filed this patent infringement action against Brand Value Growth LLC on 3 March 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge J. Paul Oetken. The single asserted patent, US11471072B2, covers a pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor. Encelion was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for patent assertion work, while Brand Value Growth retained Bass, Berry & Sims PLC.
The case closed on 8 June 2026 — 97 days after filing — when the court was notified that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Judge Oetken issued an order discontinuing the action without prejudice and without costs, granting a 30-day window to either reopen the case if settlement was not consummated or submit a formal stipulation of dismissal. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled'. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
A 97-day resolution is notably swift for a patent infringement case in the SDNY. The speed is consistent with parties who assess early settlement as commercially preferable to the cost and uncertainty of full litigation. What drove the specific terms — including any ongoing obligations or restrictions — is not ascertainable from the public docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Settled in 97 days
97-day resolution — well below median patent case duration
US11471072B2 — Pulse Sensor System and Method
Any company developing, sourcing, or integrating pulse sensor hardware or software — including wearable health devices, optical heart-rate monitors, medical-grade patient monitors, or fitness tracking platforms — should assess freedom-to-operate against US11471072B2. The patent was actively asserted, and its claims survived this litigation without any narrowing construction or invalidity finding. OEM manufacturers supplying components to brand-name wearable device companies face indirect infringement exposure as well.
Official order — verbatim text
The court order records a settlement in principle notified by the parties, resulting in an administrative discontinuance without prejudice and without costs. The order does not adjudicate infringement, validity, or claim scope. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled', consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than any judicial determination on the merits of the pulse sensor patent claims.
Case settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Settlement in principle: how this closure works
The court issued an administrative discontinuance without prejudice on notification of a settlement in principle — not a final judgment. A 30-day window was granted to either formalise the settlement via stipulation or reopen the case. If no reopening motion is filed within that period, all claims are deemed dismissed with prejudice by operation of the order. The specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Conditional closure mechanismEncelion preserves enforcement rights during settlement window
As plaintiff, Encelion LLC retains the ability to reopen the action within 30 days if the settlement is not consummated, protecting it from a premature final dismissal. The settlement-in-principle outcome means US11471072B2 was never adjudicated on the merits, leaving its validity and scope intact for potential future enforcement against other parties.
Patent validity untestedBrand Value Growth exits without a merits finding
Brand Value Growth LLC avoids any judicial finding of infringement or invalidity. Because no claim construction or merits ruling was issued, the defendant cannot use this case as precedent to challenge US11471072B2 in other proceedings. The specific obligations, if any, imposed on Brand Value Growth as part of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
No infringement findingUS11471072B2 remains an active enforcement risk for pulse sensor players
The settlement without merits adjudication means US11471072B2 survives legally unscathed. Companies operating in pulse sensor hardware, wearable health monitoring, or adjacent biosensing technology should note that the asserted patent was not invalidated or narrowed. Encelion's use of Rabicoff Law LLC — a patent assertion-focused firm — suggests continued enforcement activity in this space is plausible.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Encelion LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Brand Value Growth LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Encelion LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Encelion LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc E Ackerman | Attorney | Counsel for Brand Value Growth LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Terry Lynn Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Brand Value Growth LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bass, Berry & Sims PLC | Law Firm | Representing Brand Value Growth LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge J. Paul Oetken | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the pulse sensor and wearable biometrics space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Encelion v. Brand Value Growth — covering portfolio activity, technology filing trends, and white space near US11471072B2.
Encelion's assertion footprint beyond US11471072B2
Encelion LLC's engagement of Rabicoff Law LLC — a firm associated with repeat patent assertion — suggests the entity may hold or control additional patents beyond the single asserted in this case. Mapping Encelion's full portfolio can reveal whether related pulse sensor or biometric signal processing patents pose broader risk across product lines.
Portfolio mapping signalFiling trends in optical pulse and PPG sensing technology
Photoplethysmographic and optical pulse detection is a high-velocity filing domain driven by wearable health device growth. Tracking recent granted patents and published applications in pulse sensor systems and methods can identify crowded claim spaces, white space for design-around, and emerging assignees entering the field alongside entities like Encelion.
Sector filing trendBrand Value Growth LLC's IP and product positioning
Brand Value Growth LLC's patent holdings and R&D investment profile in the biosensing or wearable technology space are not evident from the public docket. Searching its IP filings and any affiliated entities can reveal whether it holds defensive patents, relies on third-party components, or represents a broader commercial platform in the health device market.
Defendant portfolio checkDesign-around and adjacent claim space near US11471072B2
US11471072B2 covers a pulse sensor system and method, but adjacent technical approaches — such as alternative signal processing algorithms, different sensor modalities, or novel form-factor implementations — may represent claim white space. Identifying these gaps supports both design-around strategies and new filing opportunities for R&D teams in wearable biometrics.
White space & design-aroundSimilar pulse sensor and wearable biometric patent cases in SDNY
Browse patent infringement actions involving pulse sensor, wearable biometric, and health monitoring technology litigated in the Southern District of New York.
What this case signals for the pulse sensor IP landscape
A rapid settlement over a pulse sensor patent in SDNY highlights rising enforcement activity in wearable biosensing technology.
Early settlement suggests defendants weigh cost vs. exposure quickly
At 97 days, this case resolved before significant discovery costs accrued. For companies receiving demand letters over pulse sensor or wearable biometric patents, the pattern suggests that early, structured settlement discussions — rather than full defence — may be the commercially dominant strategy, particularly for smaller defendants.
Uncontested patents remain enforceable: monitor US11471072B2
Because the case settled without any claim construction, invalidity challenge, or IPR petition on the public record, US11471072B2 remains fully enforceable. Competitors in pulse sensing and wearable health monitoring should track this patent's citation network and any continuation applications for early warning of further enforcement campaigns.
Encelion v Brand — key questions answered
The single patent asserted was US11471072B2, covering a pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor, filed under application number US17/206065. The case was brought in the Southern District of New York.
The case settled. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Settled'. The court was notified that the parties reached a settlement in principle and issued an order discontinuing the action without prejudice and without costs on 8 June 2026, 97 days after filing. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
No. The case settled before any claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement determination was issued. US11471072B2 was neither validated nor invalidated by this litigation. Its legal enforceability remains unaffected by this proceeding.
Judge Oetken's order allowed either party to reopen the case within 30 days if the settlement was not consummated, or to submit a formal stipulation of dismissal. If neither action was taken within that window, all claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice by operation of the order. This is a standard conditional closure mechanism used in the SDNY.
US11471072B2 remains enforceable following this settlement. Companies developing or selling pulse sensor hardware, wearable heart-rate monitors, or integrated biometric platforms in the U.S. should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent, particularly given the involvement of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with active patent assertion campaigns.
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.