Joovv v. Mito Red Light: Seven-Patent PBM Therapy Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Joovv Incorporated filed suit against rival Mito Red Light Incorporated in Arizona District Court, asserting seven patents spanning photobiomodulation therapy systems, floor-stand hardware, and hanging apparatus. After 577 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the entire action with prejudice — each side bearing its own legal costs.
Seven-patent PBM therapy clash ends in bilateral walk-away
On 13 June 2023, Joovv Incorporated filed an infringement action against Mito Red Light Incorporated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Michael T. Liburdi. The complaint asserted seven patents — US10478635B1, USD0963873S, US11253719B2, US10828505B2, US10639495B, US11033752B2, and US11524172B2 — covering photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy systems and methods, floor-stand mounting hardware, and therapeutic light-source hanging apparatus.
The case closed on 10 January 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which Judge Liburdi granted as Document 100 of the docket. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law: Joovv cannot re-assert the same claims against Mito Red Light on the same patents in any future action. The court’s order also confirmed that each party would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no monetary settlement component was disclosed to the court.
The 577-day duration — filed mid-2023, closed early 2025 — is consistent with cases that run through substantive discovery and claim-construction briefing before settling. The joint nature of the stipulation, the with-prejudice designation, and the symmetric cost allocation collectively suggest the parties reached a private resolution whose commercial terms remain confidential. Whether that resolution involved a licence, a cross-licence, or a covenant not to sue is not discernible from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 577 days
577 days — roughly 19 months from filing to close, above median for a multi-patent district court infringement action
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final judgment on the merits. Joovv cannot bring the same claims — or any claims that could have been raised — against Mito Red Light on these seven patents in any subsequent action. The joint stipulation, approved by Judge Liburdi, confirms both parties consented to this finality.
Rule 41 — final on the meritsJoovv surrenders the right to re-litigate these seven patents against Mito Red Light
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Joovv permanently relinquishes the ability to pursue infringement claims on US10478635B1, USD0963873S, US11253719B2, US10828505B2, US10639495B, US11033752B2, and US11524172B2 against this defendant. This typically signals either that the parties reached a licensing or commercial agreement off the record, or that Joovv assessed continued litigation as commercially unwarranted.
No re-filing rights against Mito Red LightMito Red Light gains litigation finality — but patent risk persists
Mito Red Light secures protection against re-litigation of these specific claims by Joovv. However, the underlying patents remain in force and can still be enforced against other parties or against Mito Red Light’s future products not covered by any private arrangement. The absence of a public invalidity finding means Joovv’s portfolio is undiminished in scope against the broader market.
Claim-specific finality onlyPBM therapy IP landscape remains contested after bilateral walk-away
Because the dismissal carries no public merits ruling, Joovv’s seven PBM patents emerge with their presumption of validity intact. Other competitors in the photobiomodulation therapy space — floor-stand manufacturers, wearable PBM device makers, and OEM suppliers — cannot rely on this case’s outcome as precedent against Joovv’s enforcement posture. The resolution reinforces Joovv’s capacity to enforce this portfolio selectively.
Portfolio validity unimpairedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Joovv Incorporated | Individual | Photobiomodulation therapy device manufacturer — holder of US10478635B1 and 6 further PBM patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mito Red Light Incorporated | Individual | Mito Red Light Incorporated — competing PBM therapy device maker accused of infringing Joovv’s portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander D. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maria Crimi Speth | Attorney | Counsel for Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Kain , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Smiley | Attorney | Counsel for Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zac Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Concept Law Group, PA | Law Firm | Representing Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jaburg Wilk – Phoenix, AZ | Law Firm | Representing Joovv IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric W. Benisek | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey Lindgren | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Michael Motolenich-Salas | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Benjamin Dvoren | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raeesabbas Mohamed | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Vasquez | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Mcarthur | Attorney | Counsel for Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MotoSalas Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | RM Warner PLC | Law Firm | Representing Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mito Red Light IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Michael T Liburdi | Judge | Arizona District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the joint stipulation is deliberately bare: it records consent, confirms with-prejudice finality, and allocates costs symmetrically. No claim construction, no infringement finding, and no invalidity determination is embedded in the order. For practitioners, this means the seven asserted patents carry no adverse judicial history — their claims have never been construed or tested on the merits — leaving Joovv’s enforcement position against third parties entirely unweakened by this proceeding.
US10478635B1 — Photobiomodulation therapy systems and related device portfolio
The asserted portfolio spans seven patents filed across application dates ranging from 2015 to 2022, covering the core architecture of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy systems and their physical mounting hardware. US10478635B1 and US11253719B2 protect PBM therapy systems and methods — the core light-delivery technology operating in red and near-infrared wavelengths used for tissue recovery and wellness applications. US10828505B2 and US10639495B address floor-stand configurations, while US11524172B2 covers hanging apparatus — both hardware categories critical to the consumer and clinical deployment of PBM panels.
Design patent USD0963873S adds ornamental protection for device aesthetics, creating a dual-layer enforcement strategy that is difficult for competitors to neutralise through functional redesign alone. The breadth of this portfolio — covering systems, methods, mounting hardware, and visual appearance — reflects a deliberate effort to foreclose design-arounds across the full product stack. For any company active in the consumer PBM therapy device space, this portfolio represents a material freedom-to-operate risk that the resolution of this case does not diminish.
Should you run an FTO against Joovv’s PBM therapy portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing photobiomodulation therapy panels, wearables, or mounting accessories should treat this seven-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The with-prejudice dismissal in Joovv v. Mito Red Light carries no claim construction or invalidity finding — meaning no judicial narrowing of claim scope is available to rely on. R&D teams developing red-light therapy devices, floor stands, or hanging systems should commission a formal FTO analysis before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the seven asserted patents against your product’s design specifications, identify claim elements most likely to read on competing architectures, and surface prior art relevant to validity challenges. Eureka’s citation network also identifies continuation and divisional applications that may extend Joovv’s coverage beyond the seven patents asserted in this action — a critical blind spot for teams relying on case docket data alone.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478635B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar photobiomodulation and therapeutic light device patent cases
Cases involving photobiomodulation therapy device patents in U.S. district courts, including multi-patent infringement actions in the medical light and wellness device sector.
What this case signals for the photobiomodulation therapy IP landscape
A seven-patent assertion ending in a private with-prejudice dismissal is a characteristic move in competitive device markets where licensing deals are preferred over jury risk.
Joovv’s seven-patent portfolio remains fully enforceable post-dismissal
No invalidity ruling, no claim construction order, and no public licence terms emerged from this case. Joovv’s PBM therapy patents — including design patent USD0963873S and six utility patents — retain their presumption of validity and can be deployed against any market entrant offering competing photobiomodulation devices or accessories.
Symmetric cost allocation suggests a commercially negotiated exit
When both parties bear their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically signals that a commercial resolution — licence, revenue share, or covenant not to sue — was reached privately. Neither side claimed a fee-shifting win. IP teams at PBM competitors should note that Joovv has demonstrated willingness to litigate through near-trial stages before resolving.
Incorporated v Mito — key questions answered
Joovv asserted seven patents: US10478635B1, USD0963873S, US11253719B2, US10828505B2, US10639495B, US11033752B2, and US11524172B2. These cover photobiomodulation therapy systems and methods, floor-stand hardware, therapeutic light-source hanging apparatus, and an ornamental design for a PBM device.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication that permanently bars Joovv from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Mito Red Light. The joint stipulation was ordered by Judge Liburdi on 10 January 2025. The seven asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties — no invalidity finding was made.
There is no public winner or loser — the case ended via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The court made no merits ruling. Each party bore its own attorneys’ fees and costs, which suggests a privately negotiated commercial resolution whose terms are not disclosed in the public docket.
The case ran for 577 days, from filing on 13 June 2023 to closure on 10 January 2025. This duration is consistent with cases that proceed through discovery and potentially claim-construction briefing before the parties reach a private resolution.
Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy uses red and near-infrared light to stimulate cellular function, typically for muscle recovery, pain relief, and wellness applications. The sector has grown rapidly, attracting multiple device makers competing on both functional performance and hardware design — conditions that incentivise aggressive patent portfolio building and enforcement, as illustrated by Joovv’s seven-patent assertion in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.