Infringement action filed 8 Jul 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 4 May 2023, with US9095348B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
An apparatus and method for use in performing ablation or coagulation of organs and other tissue includes a metallized fabric electrode array which is substantially absorbent and/or permeable to moisture and gases such as steam and conformable to the body cavity. Following placement of the ablation device into contact with the tissue to be ablated, an RF generator is used to deliver RF energy to the conductive regions and to thereby induce current flow from the electrodes to tissue to be ablated. As the current heats the tissue, moisture (such as steam or liquid) leaves the tissue causing the tissue to dehydrate. Suction may be applied to facilitate moisture removal. The moisture permeability and/or absorbency of the electrode carrying member allows the moisture to leave the ablation site so as to prevent the moisture from providing a path of conductivity for the current.
Edward G. Poplawski · Erik J. Carlson · Ian Robert Liston · Jennifer A. Ward · Joseph E. Wolfson · Mark H. Anania · Olivia M. Kim · Paige C. Hogan · Stacey A. Scrivani · Vera M. Elson
Firm
Stevens & Lee PC, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties to the abovecaptioned actions, through their undersigned counsel of record, that: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses in these actions are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 2. Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and any costs not previously taxed and paid by Minerva Surgical, Inc. to Hologic, Inc."
Case 1:20-cv-00925 · D. Del. · closed 4 May 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:20-cv-00925 is a patent infringement action brought by Hologic, Inc. against Minerva Surgical, Inc., filed on 8 Jul 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 4 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:20-cv-00925?
US9095348B2 (“Moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation”), assigned to HOLOGIC, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation.
How was case 1:20-cv-00925 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: "IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties to the abovecaptioned actions, through their undersigned counsel of record, that: 1. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses in these actions are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 2. Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and any costs not previously taxed and paid by Minerva Surgical, Inc. to Hologic, Inc."
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-00925 take?
1030 calendar days, from filing on 8 Jul 2020 to closure on 4 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:20-cv-00925?
Assad Rajani, Karen L. Pascale, Marc A. Cohn, Pilar Gabrielle Kraman, Ryan J. Casamiquela and William O. Young Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Hologic. Edward G. Poplawski, Erik J. Carlson, Ian Robert Liston, Jennifer A. Ward, Joseph E. Wolfson, Mark H. Anania, Olivia M. Kim, Paige C. Hogan, Stacey A. Scrivani and Vera M. Elson appear for defendant Minerva Surgical.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:20-cv-00925 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:20-cv-00925 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.
