Infringement action filed 26 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 4 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
SensaT.R.A.C.™ · V.A.C.® Therapy, Veraflo™ Therapy, Prevena™ Therapy, and AbThera™ Therapy, that utilize a V.A.C. Ulta or V.A.C. Ulta 4 NPWT unit · VeraT.R.A.C. Duo™ tubing (sold as a kit and separately) · VeraT.R.A.C.™ · topical wound solutions (specifically for Veraflo Therapy) · wound dressings (sold as a kit and separately)
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 7:26-cv-00111, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
In various embodiments of the invention, a vacuum pump can be used as a stand alone unit to create, monitor and control a vacuum in a variety of surgical procedures. The vacuum pump can be controlled by a processor and automatically increases or decreases the vacuum based on monitoring of parameters selected from the group consisting of heart-rate of the fetus, heart rate of the mother, heart rate of patient, blood pressure of the fetus, blood pressure of the mother and blood pressure of the patient, position of the wound, position of the fetus, condition of the fetus, condition of the mother, condition of the patient. Visual or audio feedback is used to allow the care giver increased control of the pumping device while carrying out the procedure.
In various embodiments of the invention, an electro-vacuum pump can be used either as a stand alone unit to create, monitor and control a vacuum or to maintain, assist or as a back up for a hand operated pump in a variety of surgical procedures. The vacuum pump is controlled by a processor and is automatically activated when the vacuum is below a pre-selected parameter or a parameter selected on the fly by the surgeon. Visual or audio feedback is used to allow the surgeon increased control of the vacuum device while carrying out the surgical procedure.
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
"Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for intra-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). Dkt. No. 22. The parties request to transfer the above-captioned case to the San Antonio Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Having considered the motion, the applicable law, and the relevant facts, the Court GRANTS the motion. It is therefore ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer Case No. 7:26-cv-00111-DC-DTG to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, without delay."
Case 7:26-cv-00111 · W.D. Tex. · closed 4 June 2026
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.
7:26-cv-00111 is a patent infringement action brought by Meditech Development, Inc. against Solventum Corporation, filed on 26 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 4 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 7:26-cv-00111?
US9186444B2 (“Portable regulated pressure devices for medical procedures”), assigned to MEDITECH DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, currently active; US9138216B2 (“Portable regulated vacuum pump for medical procedures”), assigned to MEDITECH DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, currently active. The record also lists SensaT.R.A.C.™, V.A.C.® Therapy, Veraflo™ Therapy, Prevena™ Therapy, and AbThera™ Therapy, that utilize a V.A.C. Ulta or V.A.C. Ulta 4 NPWT unit, VeraT.R.A.C. Duo™ tubing (sold as a kit and separately), VeraT.R.A.C.™, topical wound solutions (specifically for Veraflo Therapy) and wound dressings (sold as a kit and separately).
How was case 7:26-cv-00111 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for intra-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). Dkt. No. 22. The parties request to transfer the above-captioned case to the San Antonio Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Having considered the motion, the applicable law, and the relevant facts, the Court GRANTS the motion. It is therefore ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer Case No. 7:26-cv-00111-DC-DTG to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, without delay."
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 7:26-cv-00111 take?
70 calendar days, from filing on 26 Mar 2026 to closure on 4 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 7:26-cv-00111?
Brian S. Seal, Mark D. Siegmund and Thomas G. Southard are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Meditech Development. Aaron D. Bray, Aimee Vidaurri, Colette Elizabeth Verch, Deborah J. Swedlow, Kathryn Lauren Cantu, Ron N. Sklar and Scott D. Barnett appear for defendant Solventum.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 7:26-cv-00111 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 7:26-cv-00111 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.
