Newtonoid v. Abbott: COVID-19 Diagnostic Patent Case Voluntarily Dismissed in Illinois

Case Overview

In a notable procedural conclusion to a high-profile diagnostic technology dispute, the patent infringement case Newtonoid Technologies, LLC v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Case No. 1:23-cv-02532) ended with a voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiffs on February 24, 2025 — nearly two years after litigation commenced. Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court, the case centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. US11392818B2, a patent covering COVID-19 rapid antigen testing technology, specifically as embodied in Abbott’s widely distributed BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Antigen Self Test.

The plaintiffs — Newtonoid Technologies, LLC, Veristik, Inc., and Windgo, Inc. — elected to dismiss all claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), before Abbott Laboratories served an answer or motion for summary judgment. For IP professionals tracking patent assertion strategies in the diagnostics and medtech sector, this outcome offers meaningful lessons about litigation timing, coalition plaintiff structures, and the strategic calculus behind early-stage voluntary dismissals.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. US11392818B2 (Application No. US17/216096) covering rapid antigen diagnostic testing:

• • US11392818B2 — Technology relating to a testing card incorporating a mixture of testing solution and nasal swab sample, a result window for visual interpretation, and a QR code enabling digital data capture and verification of COVID-19 antigen test results.

The accused product was Abbott’s BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Antigen Self Test, a device combining a physical testing card, result window, and QR code, which achieved widespread commercial significance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via voluntary dismissal without a court order, filed by Plaintiffs Newtonoid Technologies, LLC, Veristik, Inc., and Windgo, Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). This rule permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — conditions confirmed as met at the time of filing.

No damages award, injunctive relief, or final judgment on the merits was entered. The specific terms driving the dismissal — whether a settlement, licensing agreement, or strategic withdrawal — were not publicly disclosed in available case records.

Key Legal Issues & Significance

The procedural basis — Rule 41(a)(1) — is legally significant. Because no answer had been served by Abbott Laboratories at the time of dismissal, the plaintiffs retained the unilateral right to dismiss without judicial approval. This “without prejudice” dismissal mechanism, unless expressly stated otherwise or subject to a prior dismissal of the same claims (the “two-dismissal rule” under Rule 41(a)(1)(B)), generally preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile.

The engagement of Latham & Watkins as defense counsel for Abbott likely signaled to plaintiffs the formidable resources and defensive strategies Abbott would deploy — including potential validity challenges via IPR petitions at the USPTO, which are commonly deployed against diagnostic technology patents in high-stakes litigation.

This case underscores an increasingly recognized dynamic in patent assertion against large medtech defendants: the pre-answer phase is strategically critical. Plaintiffs controlling multi-entity IP portfolios must assess whether the defendant’s defensive posture justifies continued prosecution or if an alternative resolution better serves portfolio objectives.