Intake Breathing Technology v. Airway ESTD 2024: Nasal Strip Patent Dismissed
Intake Breathing Technology, LLC asserted US9510969B2 — a magnetic nasal strip patent — against competitor Airway ESTD 2024 in Alabama’s Middle District. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after just 11 days, leaving the door open for refiling.
A rapid 11-day exit in an Alabama magnetic nasal strip dispute
On April 11, 2025, Intake Breathing Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against Airway ESTD 2024, a company established in 2024. The complaint centred on US9510969B2, a patent covering magnetic nasal strip technology, with the accused products identified as Airway Magnetic Nasal Strips and Intake Breathing Nasal Strips. Capell & Howard PC represented the plaintiff; no defendant counsel appeared on the public docket.
On April 22, 2025 — just 11 days after filing — the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court confirmed the case was dismissed without prejudice by operation of that rule, denied all pending motions as moot, and terminated all deadlines. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been served by the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right without court approval.
The 11-day lifespan is notably brief and may suggest early settlement discussions, a licensing resolution, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Intake Breathing Technology retains the right to reassert the same patent claims. The absence of defendant counsel on record and the lack of any substantive motion practice leave the precise commercial resolution unknown from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 11 days
11 days from filing to dismissal — exceptionally short, suggesting early resolution or strategic repositioning.
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, no defendant response had been filed, so the dismissal took effect automatically upon the plaintiff’s notice. The court’s order simply confirmed the operative legal effect — the case ended by operation of the rule itself, not by judicial discretion.
Procedural right of plaintiffWithout prejudice confirmed — but what does that leave unresolved?
The court’s order expressly confirms dismissal without prejudice, meaning no adjudication on the merits occurred and the patent claims were never tested. Intake Breathing Technology may refile the same infringement claims against Airway ESTD 2024 — subject to the applicable statute of limitations — in this or any other competent court. No res judicata bar attaches. The underlying commercial dispute, whether settled, licensed, or simply paused, remains undisclosed on the public record.
Refiling rights preservedAirway ESTD 2024 faces no judgment — but exposure persists
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Airway ESTD 2024 has not received a ruling in its favour on infringement or validity. The defendant secured no declaratory judgment of non-infringement and no finding of invalidity. If no licensing agreement was reached, the threat of future litigation under US9510969B2 remains live. The defendant’s short window before any answer was required suggests it had minimal opportunity to mount a formal defence.
No merits determinationMagnetic nasal strip IP: a rapidly contested space worth monitoring
The swift filing and equally swift exit in this case is consistent with patent assertion strategies designed to prompt early licensing or to test a competitor’s willingness to defend. With Airway ESTD 2024 having launched only in 2024, this dispute suggests Intake Breathing Technology is actively policing its magnetic nasal strip portfolio. Companies developing or distributing nasal dilator products — particularly magnetic variants — should treat US9510969B2 as an active enforcement risk.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intake Breathing Technology, LLC | Company | Nasal airway technology company — holder of US9510969B2 (magnetic nasal strips)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Airway ESTD 2024 | Individual | Airway ESTD 2024 — nasal strip product company founded in 2024; accused infringer.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Jackson Britton | Attorney | Counsel for Intake Breathing Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Capell & Howard PC | Law Firm | Representing Intake Breathing Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Alabama Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is confirmatory rather than substantive — it acknowledges that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) operated automatically upon the plaintiff’s notice, requiring no judicial discretion. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is the operative phrase: it preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile and prevents any argument that the dismissal constitutes an adjudication on the merits of US9510969B2. The denial of all pending motions as moot confirms no substantive issues were resolved, leaving patent validity and infringement scope entirely open.
US9510969B2 — Magnetic Nasal Strip Dilation Technology
US9510969B2 (application number US14/628517) covers magnetic nasal strip technology — a product category within the broader nasal airway dilation market. Magnetic nasal strips represent a differentiated approach to nasal dilators, using magnetic force rather than purely mechanical spring tension to support nasal passage opening. The patent’s issued status as a B2 grant confirms it survived examination, including any post-issuance corrections reflected in the corrected number. The specific claims define the scope of enforceable rights Intake Breathing Technology holds over this product architecture.
For competitors in the consumer nasal dilator and sports breathing aid markets, US9510969B2 represents a meaningful enforcement risk. Intake Breathing Technology’s willingness to file — and the speed of the action — suggests active portfolio monitoring. The accused product, Airway Magnetic Nasal Strips, directly parallels the plaintiff’s own Intake Breathing Nasal Strips, indicating direct market competition. Any company designing, manufacturing, distributing, or retailing magnetic nasal strips should assess whether their product architecture falls within the claims of this patent.
Should you run an FTO against US9510969B2?
If your company is developing, sourcing, or distributing magnetic nasal strips or related nasal dilator products, US9510969B2 warrants direct FTO assessment. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to litigate — and to do so swiftly against even recently launched competitors. The fact that no invalidity challenge or non-infringement ruling was obtained in this case means the patent’s claims remain untested and fully enforceable. Product teams and procurement managers in the nasal airway device space should not assume the rapid dismissal signals weakness in the patent position.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9510969B2 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that could inform an invalidity argument, and surface related patents in the magnetic nasal dilator family that may create additional clearance obligations. Running a structured FTO before product launch — or before entering into a distribution agreement for magnetic nasal strip products — is materially lower cost than defending a future complaint in federal district court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9510969B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar nasal device patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving nasal airway device patent assertions in U.S. district courts — including magnetic dilator and strip technology infringement actions.
What this case signals for the nasal airway device IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal in a nascent product category often signals more than a simple procedural retreat.
11-day dismissals often precede licensing — or a re-filed complaint
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant even appears, it typically signals one of two outcomes: an out-of-court resolution (licensing or settlement) or a deliberate repositioning — such as refiling in a more favourable venue or awaiting further infringement evidence. Either way, the underlying patent remains live and the dispute may resurface.
US9510969B2 remains a live enforcement tool in this product category
No court has ruled on the validity or scope of US9510969B2. The patent survived this litigation intact. Any competitor in the magnetic nasal dilator space — including retailers, distributors, and OEM manufacturers — should assess their exposure to this patent before commercialising overlapping products.
Intake v Airway — key questions answered
Intake Breathing Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Airway ESTD 2024 on April 11, 2025, in the Middle District of Alabama, asserting US9510969B2 over magnetic nasal strip products. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on April 22, 2025 — just 11 days after filing — pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No merits ruling was issued.
Dismissed without prejudice means no court has adjudicated the validity or infringement of US9510969B2. Intake Breathing Technology retains the full right to refile infringement claims based on this patent against Airway ESTD 2024 or any other party. No res judicata or estoppel defence arises from this dismissal. The patent remains enforceable.
US9510969B2, filed under application number US14/628517, is a granted U.S. patent held by Intake Breathing Technology, LLC. It covers magnetic nasal strip technology used in nasal airway dilation products. The accused products in this case were Airway Magnetic Nasal Strips and Intake Breathing Nasal Strips, indicating the patent covers the magnetic dilator strip product architecture.
A voluntary dismissal within days of filing — before any defendant response — most commonly suggests an out-of-court resolution such as a licensing agreement or settlement, a strategic decision to refile in a different venue, or a desire to gather more infringement evidence before proceeding. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), no court approval is needed before an answer is filed, making it a low-cost procedural option.
No. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Airway ESTD 2024 received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement and no finding of invalidity with respect to US9510969B2. The defendant’s exposure to future infringement claims based on the same patent remains unless a licence or formal settlement was privately reached — which is not disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.