Encelion LLC v. Mobvoi, Inc.
Infringement action filed 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 18 Jun 2026, with US11471072B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11471072B2
- Application no.
- US17/206065
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-01106
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Nov 2025 – 18 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 224 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor
A pulse sensor is capable of measuring a pulse rate of a wearer at a peripheral artery. In an embodiment, the pulse sensor includes a magnet supported to move responsive to an arterial pulse and a magnetometer configured to detect changes in a magnetic field produced by the magnet. The magnet may include a plurality of ferromagnetic particles disposed in or on a flexible substrate configured to be held adjacent to human skin subject to arterial palpation and a magnetic sensor configured to sense movement of the ferromagnetic particles. A system and method may measure hydration includes using a pulse sensor to measure pulse rate and modulation. The wearer is prompted when the pulse rate and pulse modulation indicate a response to dehydration of the wearer.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 18 Oct 2022
- Earliest priority
- 11 Nov 2014
- Est. expiry
- 11 Nov 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LYNDE, C. MACGILL · CORWIN, ALAN B. · SCHOENBERG, RONALD J. · MULLINS, KEITH · GOODSON, DAVID B. · PLATT, DEREK · WIKLOF, CHRISTOPHER A.
- Classification
- A61B5/11A61B5/00A61B5/05A61B5/024A61B5/242A61B5/243A61B5/026A61B5/0255
- Prosecution counsel
- Launchpad Intellectual Property, Inc.
- Examiner
- JACOB, OOMMEN
Parties of record
Encelion LLC
- Core tech
- A61B5/11A61B5/00A61B5/05A61B5/024
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Mobvoi, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Encelion LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Encelion LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 2:25-cv-01106 · E.D. Tex. · closed 18 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-01106?
2:25-cv-01106 is a patent infringement action brought by Encelion LLC against Mobvoi, Inc., filed on 6 Nov 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 18 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-01106?
US11471072B2 (“Pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor”), assigned to ENCELION LLC, currently active. The record also lists Pulse sensor, system, and method for using a pulse sensor.
How was case 2:25-cv-01106 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Encelion LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:25-cv-01106 take?
224 calendar days, from filing on 6 Nov 2025 to closure on 18 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01106?
Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Encelion.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01106 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.