Endobotics v. Livsmed USA: Surgical Instrument Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Endobotics, LLC asserted two surgical instrument patents against Livsmed USA’s ArtiSential device in the Southern District of California. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the court dismissed the action with prejudice in 235 days — with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Joint dismissal with prejudice ends ArtiSential surgical patent dispute
In March 2024, Endobotics, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Livsmed USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-00611). The complaint alleged that Livsmed USA’s ArtiSential surgical instruments infringed at least two Endobotics patents: US7364582B2 and US7147650B2, both directed to articulating surgical instrument technology.
The case closed on November 19, 2024, when the court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Endobotics is permanently barred from bringing these same patent claims against Livsmed USA on these patents. Each party was ordered to bear its own fees and costs, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated win for either side.
At 235 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for a patent infringement action, suggesting the parties reached an agreement — possibly a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial arrangement — before claim construction or significant discovery. The public record does not disclose the specific terms of any underlying agreement, and the mutual fee-bearing structure offers no signal as to which party held greater leverage at the time of resolution.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 235 days
235 days — faster than the median patent infringement case in California district courts
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint Rule 41 motion means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal: what ‘with prejudice’ means
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is the standard procedural vehicle when both parties agree to end litigation. The court’s decision to enter dismissal with prejudice — rather than without — is legally significant: it functions as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing Endobotics’s right to re-litigate these specific patent claims against Livsmed USA. This outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution, not a unilateral withdrawal.
Joint stipulation — permanent bar on refilingEndobotics permanently relinquishes these claims against Livsmed
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Endobotics has permanently waived its right to assert US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 against Livsmed USA in connection with the ArtiSential product. This is a meaningful concession. However, because the terms of any underlying agreement are not public, Endobotics may have secured commercial or licensing value in exchange — the dismissal alone does not confirm a loss on the merits.
Claims extinguished — terms undisclosedLivsmed USA gains permanent protection from these specific patent claims
For Livsmed USA, the with-prejudice dismissal provides durable protection: Endobotics cannot revive this action or refile materially identical claims on these two patents against the ArtiSential product. The mutual fee-bearing structure suggests neither party extracted a cost award, which is typical where both sides see settlement as preferable to continued litigation risk. Livsmed’s freedom to continue commercialising ArtiSential is, at minimum, clearer than before.
Protected from re-litigation on these patentsArticulating surgical instrument sector: patent risk remains active
This dismissal resolves the specific dispute but does not invalidate either patent or publicly clarify their claim scope. US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 remain enforceable against other parties in the articulating surgical instrument space. Competitors developing or distributing similar instruments should treat these patents as live enforcement risk. The speed of resolution — 235 days — suggests Endobotics is willing to engage commercially, which may signal a licensing-oriented strategy.
Patents remain enforceable against othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Endobotics, LLC | Company | Surgical instrument IP licensor — holder of US7364582B2 and US7147650B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Livsmed USA, Inc. | Company | Livsmed USA, Inc. — U.S. distributor of ArtiSential articulating surgical instrumentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ariel Saul Reinitz | Attorney | Counsel for Endobotics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura Anne Harper | Attorney | Counsel for Endobotics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Endobotics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Martin Bader. | Attorney | Counsel for Livsmed USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Livsmed USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim and enters dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The ‘good cause appearing’ language is boilerplate but confirms no judicial objection to the terms. Critically, the with-prejudice designation converts the stipulation into a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, triggering res judicata as to these claims between these parties. The mutual fee-bearing instruction is consistent with a private settlement and eliminates any inference of a litigated outcome.
US7364582B2 & US7147650B2 — Articulating Surgical Instrument Technology
US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 both address articulating surgical instrument technology — a critical enabler in minimally invasive and laparoscopic surgery. These patents, identified by application numbers US11/429796 and US10/822081 respectively, cover mechanisms that allow the distal end of a surgical instrument to move with degrees of freedom analogous to a human wrist. This wristed articulation is foundational to advanced laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgical platforms, and represents a technically dense area of patent activity.
Endobotics asserting these patents against the ArtiSential line — a commercially available articulating laparoscopic instrument — signals that these patents are positioned as foundational IP covering end-effector articulation broadly, not merely a specific product implementation. For surgical device OEMs, distributors, and robotic surgery platform developers, the continued enforceability of these patents post-dismissal means that design freedom in articulating instrument architecture cannot be assumed without a thorough FTO review.
Should you run an FTO against US7364582B2 and US7147650B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing articulating surgical instruments — including laparoscopic tools, robotic end-effectors, or wristed instrument platforms — should treat US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 as active FTO concerns. This case demonstrates that Endobotics is willing to assert these patents in federal court. The fact that Livsmed USA resolved the matter quickly does not reduce risk for other market participants whose products may share similar articulation architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s articulation features against the claim language of both patents, identify relevant prior art that may support a design-around or validity challenge, and surface the full international patent family to flag parallel enforcement risk in non-U.S. markets. For R&D and product teams, running this analysis before market entry is substantially cheaper than defending infringement litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7364582B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar surgical instrument patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving articulating surgical instruments and minimally invasive device technology filed in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the surgical robotics and instruments IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice joint dismissal in a two-patent surgical instrument case carries specific strategic implications for competitors and product teams.
With-prejudice dismissal without a cost award is a strong settlement signal
When both parties bear their own costs and dismiss with prejudice, it typically indicates a private commercial arrangement — licensing, cross-license, or covenant — rather than a defendant victory. Companies in the articulating surgical instrument space should assume a business deal underlies this resolution and investigate accordingly.
US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 remain live enforcement risks for third parties
Dismissal with prejudice only protects Livsmed USA. These two patents are not invalidated or disclaimed by this outcome. Any competitor whose product shares technical features with ArtiSential — particularly articulation mechanisms — should conduct FTO analysis against both patents before commercialisation.
Endobotics v Livsmed — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Endobotics v. Livsmed USA (3:24-cv-00611) means Endobotics is permanently barred from asserting US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 against Livsmed USA regarding the ArtiSential instruments. It functions as a final judgment on the merits, triggered here by a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation agreed to by both parties.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects Livsmed USA from further assertion of these patents in connection with the ArtiSential product. The patents themselves are not invalidated or disclaimed. Endobotics retains the right to assert US7364582B2 and US7147650B2 against other parties, making them active enforcement risks for competitors in the articulating surgical instrument market.
The 235-day resolution — faster than many patent cases in California district courts — suggests the parties reached a private commercial agreement, possibly a license or covenant not to sue, before significant discovery or claim construction. The mutual fee-bearing structure and joint Rule 41 motion are both consistent with a negotiated resolution. The specific terms are not part of the public record.
ArtiSential is a commercially available articulating laparoscopic surgical instrument manufactured by Livsmed and distributed in the U.S. by Livsmed USA. Its wristed end-effector articulation design appears to have been the basis for Endobotics’s infringement allegations under US7364582B2 and US7147650B2, both of which cover articulation mechanisms for minimally invasive surgical instruments.
No. The dismissal is party-specific and does not create any FTO for third parties. Surgical device companies with articulating instrument products that share technical features with ArtiSential should independently assess their exposure to US7364582B2 and US7147650B2. The case confirms these patents are actively asserted, making FTO analysis against both patents advisable for any new product in the articulating surgical instrument category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.