Inomed Technologies v. UCLA Health — Dismissed Without Prejudice After 183 Days
Inomed Technologies filed a patent infringement action against UCLA Health and researcher Akira Ishiyama asserting US11083789B2, a patent covering IVIG treatments for Bell’s palsy. The case collapsed without a substantive ruling — dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s final order to show cause.
Lack-of-prosecution dismissal in the neuroimmunology treatment IP space
On July 3, 2023, Inomed Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint in the Central District of California against UCLA Health and researcher Akira Ishiyama. The asserted patent — US11083789B2 — covers IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) treatment protocols for Bell’s palsy, a peripheral facial nerve condition. Chief Judge Steve Kim presided. The action named both a major academic medical system and an individual researcher as defendants, suggesting the alleged infringement may relate to clinical or research-stage activity at UCLA.
The case never progressed to substantive litigation. On November 9, 2023, the court issued a Final Order to Show Cause demanding that Inomed explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, with a response deadline of November 30, 2023. Inomed filed no response. On January 2, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Local Rule 41, citing both failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. No verdict on the merits was reached and no costs were awarded.
A 183-day lifespan ending in a non-merits dismissal is consistent with a filing that encountered internal resource constraints, settlement dialogue, or strategic reconsideration after the complaint was lodged. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Inomed retains the legal right to refile the same claims. What the public record does not reveal is whether the parties reached any informal resolution, whether Inomed voluntarily chose not to respond, or whether the asserted patent’s claims present validity or enforceability concerns that discouraged further prosecution.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 183 days
183 days — resolved before reaching discovery or claim construction
Dismissed without prejudice — what the court’s order means for both parties
Dismissed for lack of prosecution under Local Rule 41
The Central District’s Local Rule 41 empowers the court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to diligently prosecute its claims. Here, the trigger was Inomed’s silence in response to the court’s Final Order to Show Cause. The dismissal is not a judgment on the patent’s validity or infringement — it is a procedural termination driven entirely by plaintiff inaction.
Procedural — no merits rulingWithout prejudice — the door to refiling remains open
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Inomed from reasserting US11083789B2 against UCLA Health in a new action, provided applicable statutes of limitations have not expired. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would extinguish the claim entirely. For UCLA Health, the absence of a merits ruling means the infringement question remains legally unresolved and potential exposure persists.
Refile rights preservedUCLA Health and Ishiyama face no adverse finding
Because the case was dismissed before any substantive ruling, UCLA Health and co-defendant Akira Ishiyama carry no court-determined liability. No injunction, damages award, or consent decree was entered. However, the filing itself signals that a patent holder believes IVIG Bell’s palsy activities at UCLA fall within the scope of US11083789B2 — a consideration relevant to ongoing or future clinical programs.
No liability determinedSilent plaintiff suggests resolution or reassessment off the record
Plaintiffs rarely allow cases to reach a show-cause stage without a reason. The complete absence of any court filing by Inomed after the complaint suggests either an off-record settlement or licensing discussion, a strategic decision not to litigate at this stage, or an internal resource constraint. The public record is silent on which of these explains the inaction, leaving UCLA Health’s IP exposure formally unresolved.
Off-record resolution possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Inomed Techonologies, Inc. | Company | Medical technology company — holder of US11083789B2 covering IVIG Bell’s palsy therapySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | UCLA Health | Company | UCLA Health — academic medical system; co-defendant Akira Ishiyama, individual researcherSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for Inomed Techonologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Weinstein | Attorney | Counsel for Inomed Techonologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steve Kim | Chief Judge | California Central District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order is unambiguously procedural: dismissal was triggered solely by Inomed’s failure to respond to the Final Order to Show Cause, not by any assessment of infringement, patent validity, or claim scope. The without-prejudice designation is significant — it forecloses no future action by Inomed and creates no res judicata protection for UCLA Health. For practitioners, the order’s citation of L.R. 41 confirms this is a standard failure-to-prosecute termination, carrying no persuasive weight on the underlying patent merits.
US11083789B2 — IVIG treatment protocol for Bell’s palsy
US11083789B2, filed under application number US17/066459, covers intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment protocols for Bell’s palsy — an acute peripheral facial nerve paralysis condition. IVIG is an immunomodulatory therapy typically used in autoimmune and inflammatory neurological conditions. The patent’s application date of approximately late 2020 situates it within a period of expanding interest in immunoglobulin therapies, and its grant suggests the USPTO found sufficient novelty in the specific protocol claimed over prior IVIG art.
From a competitive standpoint, a granted method-of-treatment patent in the IVIG-for-Bell’s-palsy space carries enforcement potential across clinical settings — hospitals, infusion centres, and academic medical systems that administer IVIG to facial palsy patients. The naming of both an institutional defendant (UCLA Health) and an individual researcher (Akira Ishiyama) suggests the patent holder views the claims as broad enough to reach clinical research activity, not merely commercial product manufacture. Competitors and clinical operators in the peripheral nerve disorder treatment space should treat this patent as an active monitoring priority.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11083789B2?
Any organisation administering, developing, or commercialising IVIG-based treatment protocols for Bell’s palsy or related peripheral facial nerve conditions should treat US11083789B2 as a live FTO concern. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is willing to assert the patent in federal court against a large academic medical system, meaning neither institutional size nor research context provides safe harbour. The without-prejudice dismissal means the threat has not been extinguished.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claim scope of US11083789B2 against current clinical protocols and pipeline IVIG products in minutes. Eureka can identify prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, flag related patents in the same family, and monitor for any continuation filings that could extend coverage. Setting a claim monitoring alert on this patent is advisable given the unresolved litigation posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11083789B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases — IVIG treatment patents and neuroimmunology infringement actions
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the neuroimmunology and IVIG patent landscape
A dismissed-without-prejudice case over a treatment protocol patent against an academic medical centre carries distinct implications for IP strategy in the IVIG therapeutics space.
Treatment protocol patents can reach academic medical systems
The naming of UCLA Health — a large academic medical system — and an individual researcher as defendants illustrates that method-of-treatment patents covering IVIG protocols are not confined to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Clinical institutions conducting or supervising IVIG therapy for Bell’s palsy should assess whether their practices fall within the claims of US11083789B2.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves litigation optionality for Inomed
Inomed retains the right to refile. Companies in the IVIG treatment space and their counsel should monitor whether a new action is brought, particularly if Inomed strengthens its litigation posture or secures licensing counsel. The clock on any refiling is governed by the applicable statute of limitations, not the prior dismissal.
Inomed v UCLA — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on January 2, 2024, for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff, Inomed Technologies, failed to respond to the court’s Final Order to Show Cause. No merits ruling was issued. The dismissal preserves Inomed’s right to refile the same claims.
Inomed asserted US11083789B2 (application number US17/066459), which covers IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin) treatment protocols for Bell’s palsy, a peripheral facial nerve paralysis condition. UCLA Health and researcher Akira Ishiyama were named as defendants.
It means the court terminated the case because the plaintiff failed to actively advance the litigation — here, by not responding to a show-cause order. ‘Without prejudice’ means the dismissal does not prevent the plaintiff from filing a new lawsuit asserting the same patent claims, subject to any applicable limitations period.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal does not bar refiling. Inomed may bring a new action asserting US11083789B2 against UCLA Health or Akira Ishiyama, provided the statute of limitations has not expired and the same claims are not barred by any intervening agreement between the parties.
The public record does not specify. In patent cases, individual researchers are sometimes named when the alleged infringing activity is tied to their specific research, clinical decisions, or inventorship disputes. The case was dismissed before any substantive pleadings clarified the basis for naming Ishiyama individually.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.