Omnitek Partners v. Spring Loaded Technology: Knee Brace Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Omnitek Partners, LLC asserted US8579771B2 — a patent covering knee brace technology — against Spring Loaded Technology’s Levitation Knee Brace in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed in just 152 days when Omnitek voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, surrendering the right to re-file the same action against this defendant.
Early voluntary dismissal ends Omnitek’s knee brace infringement claim
On 24 January 2024, Omnitek Partners, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00042) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US8579771B2 against Spring Loaded Technology, Inc. in connection with the defendant’s Levitation Knee Brace product. Omnitek was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Texas-based firm with a history of patent assertion in the Eastern District, while Spring Loaded retained Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
The case closed on 24 June 2024 — just 152 days after filing — when Omnitek filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, ordering that all claims against Spring Loaded Technology be dismissed with prejudice and that each party bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Omnitek is barred from bringing the same patent claims against Spring Loaded in any future proceeding.
A resolution within 152 days — before any substantive court rulings or trial — suggests the parties reached a commercial resolution or that Omnitek reconsidered the merits of the claim after early case assessment. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling. The public record does not disclose whether any licence, settlement payment, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal; the terms, if any, remain confidential.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 152 days
152 days — resolved well before the typical EDTX trial schedule of 18–24 months
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Filing with prejudice goes beyond the default — the plaintiff affirmatively waives the right to re-litigate the same claims. The court accepted the notice, making the dismissal a final adjudication on those claims for preclusion purposes.
Plaintiff-initiated, final barOmnitek surrenders its infringement claims against Spring Loaded
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, Omnitek Partners permanently relinquished the right to assert US8579771B2 against Spring Loaded Technology on the accused Levitation Knee Brace. The patent itself remains in force and could theoretically be asserted against other parties, but the specific claims targeting Spring Loaded are extinguished. The public record does not disclose any compensating licence or settlement payment.
Claims extinguished, patent survivesSpring Loaded exits with a clean record and no costs exposure
Spring Loaded Technology secured a full dismissal with prejudice without any court ruling on the merits, and without any order of costs against it. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision means Pillsbury Winthrop’s defence fees were not recoverable, but Spring Loaded faces no future infringement risk from Omnitek under this patent on this product. The outcome is commercially equivalent to a defendant win in terms of ongoing freedom to operate.
No costs, no injunction riskEarly exit signals the limits of patent assertion in orthopaedic device sector
The rapid, pre-answer dismissal — within 152 days and before any substantive litigation — is consistent with a pattern where defendants backed by sophisticated counsel (here, Pillsbury Winthrop) signal strong invalidity or non-infringement positions early. Competitors in the wearable orthopaedic and exoskeleton space should note that US8579771B2 remains active and that Omnitek may pursue other targets. FTO analysis against this patent remains commercially relevant.
Patent still live; FTO relevantFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Omnitek Partners, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8579771B2 covering knee brace technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Spring Loaded Technology, Inc. | Company | Spring Loaded Technology, Inc. — developer of the Levitation spring-loaded knee braceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Omnitek Partners, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Omnitek Partners, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Chibib | Attorney | Counsel for Spring Loaded Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Spring Loaded Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts Omnitek’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and expressly dismisses all claims with prejudice, constituting a final judgment for res judicata purposes as to Spring Loaded Technology on this patent. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision forecloses any fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for either side. Because dismissal preceded any answer or merits ruling, no claim construction, validity, or infringement findings appear on the record — the patent’s legal status is entirely unaffected as against third parties.
US8579771B2 — Spring-loaded orthopaedic knee brace technology
US8579771B2, filed under application number 11/201577, covers technology in the orthopaedic joint support space — specifically a spring-loaded mechanism designed to provide energy return and load assistance across the knee joint, consistent with the functionality of the accused Levitation Knee Brace product. The patent is designated as a utility patent and falls within the broader field of wearable assistive orthopaedic devices, a category that has attracted significant commercial and litigation interest as the market for active and passive exoskeleton-adjacent products has expanded.
For competitors in the knee brace, lower-limb orthotic, and wearable exoskeleton sectors, US8579771B2 represents a live enforcement risk. Omnitek’s willingness to file — and the rapid, with-prejudice exit before any substantive litigation — suggests the patent has perceived assertion value even if the specific claim mapping against the Levitation Knee Brace did not survive early scrutiny. Any company commercialising spring-loaded, energy-return, or mechanically assisted knee support products should treat this patent as a priority FTO target, particularly given the possibility of continuation patents in the same family.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8579771B2?
If your company designs, manufactures, or distributes spring-loaded or energy-return knee orthotics, rehabilitation braces, or lower-limb wearable support devices, US8579771B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The patent has been asserted in active litigation and remains enforceable. The dismissal here provides no claim construction or invalidity ruling you can rely on — it leaves the claim scope entirely undefined in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US8579771B2, identify related continuation and family patents, and surface prior art that could inform invalidity arguments or design-around strategies. For product teams preparing knee brace or orthopaedic exoskeleton launches, an Eureka FTO report delivers the landscape analysis needed to quantify litigation risk before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8579771B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar orthopaedic device patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving orthopaedic and wearable assistive device patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including early dismissals and infringement actions.
What this case signals for the orthopaedic device IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in EDTX suggests defendant leverage was strong — and that US8579771B2 warrants watching.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Spring Loaded but not the broader market
The dismissal bars Omnitek from re-asserting US8579771B2 against Spring Loaded on the Levitation Knee Brace. However, competitors making functionally similar spring-loaded or energy-return knee orthotics have no such protection. The patent remains enforceable and Omnitek retains standing to assert it against other market participants.
EDTX + Garteiser Honea: a pattern worth monitoring for orthopaedic device makers
Garteiser Honea PLLC is a well-known patent assertion firm in the Eastern District of Texas. Their involvement signals a litigation-forward approach. Companies in the wearable knee support and lower-limb exoskeleton space should proactively audit exposure to US8579771B2 and related continuation patents, particularly ahead of product launches.
Omnitek v Spring — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Omnitek Partners permanently waived its right to assert the same patent claims under US8579771B2 against Spring Loaded Technology. The dismissal operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes on those specific claims. Spring Loaded cannot be sued again by Omnitek on the same basis, though the patent remains enforceable against other parties.
Omnitek Partners asserted US8579771B2, filed under application number 11/201577. The patent covers technology in the spring-loaded orthopaedic knee brace field, which was alleged to be infringed by Spring Loaded Technology’s Levitation Knee Brace product.
The case resolved in 152 days before any answer, claim construction, or substantive ruling. This is consistent with either a pre-litigation settlement, a commercial resolution outside court, or Omnitek’s reassessment of the merits after Spring Loaded’s defence team — Pillsbury Winthrop — engaged. The public record is silent on any underlying commercial terms.
Judge Gilstrap ordered that each party bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. Neither party can recover litigation costs from the other. This precludes any claim for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) by either side arising from this litigation.
No. Because the dismissal occurred before any merits ruling, there is no court determination of validity or invalidity of US8579771B2. The patent remains in force and Omnitek retains the ability to assert it against other parties. Competitors in the knee brace and orthopaedic device sector should not treat this outcome as any indication of the patent’s vulnerability.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.