Endobotics, LLC v. Design Standards, Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 15 Apr 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 3 May 2023, with US7147650B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7147650B2
- Application no.
- US10/822081
- Case no.
- 1:20-cv-10742
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- F. Dennis Saylor IV
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Apr 2020 – 3 May 2023
- Duration
- 1113 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Surgical instrument
- 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
Surgical instrument
An endoscopic or laparoscopic instrument includes a distal tool, a rigid or flexible elongated shaft that supports the distal tool, and a proximal handle or control member, where the tool and the handle are coupled to the respective distal and proximal ends of the elongated shaft via bendable motion members. The tool and the tool motion member are coupled to the handle and the handle motion member via cables and a push rod in such a way that the movement of the handle with respect to the elongated shaft in any direction is replicated by the tool at the distal end of the shaft. The magnitude of the tool motion with respect to the handle motion may be scaled depending on the size of the handle motion member with respect to that of the tool motion member.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Dec 2006
- Est. expiry
- 6 Jul 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LEE, WOOJIN
- Classification
- A61B17/29A61B19/00A61B17/00A61B17/04A61B17/28
- Examiner
- DAWSON, GLENN K.
Parties of record
Endobotics, LLC
- Core tech
- A61B17/29A61B19/00A61B17/00A61B17/04
- Counsel
- Andrew D. Bochner · Erik Dykema · Jonathan W. Lent
- Firm
- Bochner IP, Bochner IP, PLLC, Danielson Legal LLC
Design Standards, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brendan M. Shortell · David J. Connaughton · Gary E. Lambert · James F. Martin · Juliet J. DeFrancisco · Justin P. Tinger
- Firm
- Lambert & Associates, Lambert Shortell & Connaughton, Nixon Peabody LLP, Robinson Donovan PC
- Also named
- Medrobotics Corporation
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew D. Bochner | Endobotics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Erik Dykema | Endobotics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan W. Lent | Endobotics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Brendan M. Shortell | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
| David J. Connaughton | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
| Gary E. Lambert | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
| James F. Martin | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
| Juliet J. DeFrancisco | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
| Justin P. Tinger | Design Standards, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Endobotics, LLC and Defendant Design Standards Corporation stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) that the claims against each other in this action, including all claims and counterclaims, shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, and waiving all rights of appeal. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of January 2022.”
Case 1:20-cv-10742 · D. Mass. · closed 3 May 2023
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 1:20-cv-10742?
1:20-cv-10742 is a patent infringement action brought by Endobotics, LLC against Design Standards, Corp., filed on 15 Apr 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 3 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:20-cv-10742?
US7147650B2 (“Surgical instrument”), assigned to CAMBRIDGE ENDOSCOPIC DEVICES, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Surgical instrument.
How was case 1:20-cv-10742 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Endobotics, LLC and Defendant Design Standards Corporation stipulate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) that the claims against each other in this action, including all claims and counterclaims, shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, and waiving all rights of appeal. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of January 2022.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:20-cv-10742 take?
1113 calendar days, from filing on 15 Apr 2020 to closure on 3 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:20-cv-10742?
Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV presided. Andrew D. Bochner, Erik Dykema and Jonathan W. Lent are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Endobotics. Brendan M. Shortell, David J. Connaughton, Gary E. Lambert, James F. Martin, Juliet J. DeFrancisco and Justin P. Tinger appear for defendant Design Standards.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:20-cv-10742 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.