MediVis v. Novarad: Federal Circuit Affirms AR Medical Imaging Patent
MediVis, Inc. and Novarad Corp. clashed before the Federal Circuit over the validity of US10945807B2, a patent covering augmented reality viewing and tagging for medical procedures. A unanimous per curiam panel — Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto — affirmed the decision below, closing the appeal after 541 days.
Federal Circuit closes AR medical imaging validity dispute with affirmance
MediVis, Inc. brought an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case No. 24-1951 — challenging a prior ruling in an invalidity or cancellation action concerning US10945807B2, a patent directed to augmented reality viewing and tagging systems for medical procedures. The case was filed on 17 June 2024 and closed on 10 December 2025, spanning 541 days at the appellate level. Novarad Corp. was the opposing party, represented by Thorpe North & Western, LLP, while MediVis was represented by Desmarais LLP.
The Federal Circuit panel — composed of Circuit Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto — issued a per curiam order affirming the tribunal below. An affirmance at the Federal Circuit means the appellate court found no reversible legal or factual error in the underlying patentability determination. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Appeal Dismissed,’ which in conjunction with the affirmed verdict suggests the panel disposed of the appeal on the merits of the affirmance rather than through a substantive new ruling on validity.
The 541-day duration from filing to close is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s typical briefing and deliberation schedule for patent validity appeals. The per curiam format — without a named author — suggests the panel viewed the outcome as sufficiently straightforward to not require a fulsome opinion, which itself may signal that the legal questions on appeal were not regarded as close or novel. What drove the original invalidity or cancellation finding, and whether MediVis may seek further review, remain matters not fully resolved in the public record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 541 days
541-day appeal — consistent with typical Federal Circuit patent appeal timelines of 12–24 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower decision stands without reversible error
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it is holding that the tribunal below — whether a district court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — committed no reversible error of law or clearly erroneous finding of fact. The per curiam form here, without a named authoring judge, typically signals that the panel considered the outcome to follow clearly from established precedent, requiring no extended analysis.
No reversible error foundMediVis faces an upheld adverse ruling on US10945807B2
As appellant, MediVis sought to overturn the underlying patentability determination. The affirmance means that effort failed: the adverse ruling on the patent — whether an invalidity finding or cancellation — now stands as the binding outcome. MediVis’s ability to enforce US10945807B2 against Novarad or any third party may be materially constrained by this result, depending on the scope of the underlying invalidity or cancellation finding.
Appeal denied — adverse ruling upheldNovarad prevails on appeal; further challenge bar now elevated
Novarad, as appellee, successfully defended the lower tribunal’s ruling. With the Federal Circuit affirming, MediVis has exhausted appellate options at this level. Any further review would require a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, which is granted in only a small fraction of cases. The affirmance strengthens Novarad’s position and raises the practical bar for MediVis to revive the patent’s enforceability.
Appellee prevails — certiorari only pathAR medical imaging IP landscape shifts following affirmance
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance, particularly in per curiam form, signals that the validity challenge to this augmented reality medical procedure patent was treated as legally settled at the appellate stage. For competitors and new entrants in the AR-assisted medical imaging space, the practical effect depends on the scope of the underlying cancellation or invalidity ruling — but the decision suggests reduced enforcement risk from US10945807B2 in the near term.
Reduced enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MEDIVIS, INC. | Company | Augmented reality medical imaging company — holder of US10945807B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | NOVARAD CORP. | Company | Novarad Corp. — medical imaging software company, respondent in Federal Circuit appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Steinmetz | Attorney | Counsel for MEDIVIS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Betty H. Chen | Attorney | Counsel for MEDIVIS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John M. Desmarais | Attorney | Counsel for MEDIVIS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taeg Sang Cho | Attorney | Counsel for MEDIVIS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing MEDIVIS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jed H. Hansen | Attorney | Counsel for NOVARAD CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Harmer | Attorney | Counsel for NOVARAD CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Thorpe North & Western, LLP | Law Firm | Representing NOVARAD CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam order — ‘AFFIRMED’ — is among the most conclusive disposals available at the Federal Circuit. It indicates that Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto unanimously found no reversible error in the underlying patentability determination, applying the applicable standard of review — typically de novo for legal questions of invalidity and clear error for factual findings. The absence of a named opinion author and the brevity of the order suggest the panel considered the appeal to present no novel legal question warranting extended analysis, which typically makes subsequent Supreme Court review harder to justify.
US10945807B2 — Augmented Reality Viewing and Tagging for Medical Procedures
US10945807B2 — filed under application number US16/486818 — protects technology directed to augmented reality viewing and tagging in the context of medical procedures. The patent sits at the intersection of immersive display technology and clinical workflow, covering systems that overlay procedural or anatomical information onto a real-world field of view during medical interventions. This positions it within the rapidly expanding domain of AR-assisted surgery and diagnostics, where the integration of real-time imaging data with spatial computing has significant clinical and commercial implications.
For the AR medical technology sector, this patent represents a potentially high-value asset in a field where procedural accuracy and imaging integration are competitive differentiators. The validity challenge brought by Novarad — and the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of an adverse finding — suggests the claims faced substantial scrutiny. Competitors developing AR overlays for surgical navigation, radiology, or interventional procedures should assess whether any surviving claim scope in US10945807B2 remains relevant to their product roadmaps and design-around strategies.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10945807B2?
Any company developing augmented reality systems for medical procedure guidance, surgical navigation, intraoperative tagging, or clinical imaging overlay should assess US10945807B2 as part of a freedom-to-operate review. While the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of an adverse patentability ruling may reduce the patent’s enforceability, the precise scope of surviving or cancelled claims — and any continuation or divisional applications — warrants careful review before commercialising related AR medtech products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim landscape of US10945807B2 against your product specifications, identify related family members and continuations, and surface prior art that informed the validity challenge in this case. For R&D and IP teams building AR-assisted medical platforms, running a targeted FTO now — rather than after product launch — avoids costly redesign or litigation exposure down the line.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10945807B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit augmented reality medical patent appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving augmented reality, medical imaging, and patentability challenges in the AR-assisted medical procedure technology space.
What this case signals for the AR medical imaging IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s per curiam affirmance in MediVis v. Novarad carries meaningful implications for AR-assisted medical procedure patent strategy.
Per curiam affirmances signal settled law — watch for no-opinion disposals
A per curiam order without extended analysis typically indicates the Federal Circuit viewed the legal questions as uncontroversial at the appellate stage. IP counsel monitoring validity challenges in the AR medical imaging space should treat such disposals as signals that the underlying legal framework is stable — at least at the Federal Circuit level — reducing the likelihood of a surprise reversal.
Patentability of AR medical procedure systems remains heavily litigated
The invalidity or cancellation challenge to US10945807B2 reflects a broader pattern of competitors using post-grant proceedings or litigation to test the validity of augmented reality patents in clinical and surgical settings. Companies building or licensing AR-enabled medical imaging tools should proactively assess their exposure to similar challenges and ensure claim drafting anticipates validity attacks.
MEDIVIS v NOVARAD — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal’s ruling in a per curiam order issued by Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto. The case involved a patentability challenge to US10945807B2, covering augmented reality viewing and tagging for medical procedures. The affirmance means the adverse patentability determination against MediVis was upheld and stands as final at the Federal Circuit level.
US10945807B2, filed under application number US16/486818, is a U.S. patent assigned to MediVis, Inc. It covers augmented reality viewing and tagging systems used in the context of medical procedures — technology that overlays procedural or anatomical data onto a real-world view during clinical interventions. The patent sits at the intersection of spatial computing and medical imaging workflow.
A per curiam affirmance is an order signed by the panel collectively rather than a named judge, typically indicating the court viewed the outcome as following clearly from settled law or an unambiguous record. It means no reversible error was found in the decision below. The absence of an authored opinion generally makes the ruling harder to use as precedent and signals the panel did not consider the legal questions to be novel or close.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, the only remaining appellate avenue is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court grants certiorari in a very small fraction of cases — typically those presenting unresolved circuit splits or significant questions of federal law. A per curiam affirmance, which signals a non-controversial outcome, makes a successful certiorari petition statistically unlikely, though not impossible.
The affirmance of an adverse patentability finding on US10945807B2 may reduce the patent’s enforceability, potentially lowering FTO risk for competitors in the AR-assisted medical procedure space. However, the precise scope of what was cancelled or invalidated — and whether related continuation or divisional applications remain in force — requires a detailed claim-level review. Companies developing AR surgical navigation or medical imaging overlay products should conduct a targeted FTO analysis before drawing conclusions from this ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.