Perfect Point EDM Corp. v. Scintam Engineering — Voluntary Dismissal After 57 Days
Perfect Point EDM Corporation asserted two EDM technology patents — US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 — covering its E-Drill and FastEDR products against UK-based Scintam Engineering LTD in California’s Southern District. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the entire case without prejudice just 57 days after filing, before the defendant had appeared or responded.
EDM patent suit dropped before defendant engagement — what we know
On 23 April 2024, Perfect Point EDM Corporation filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Scintam Engineering LTD. The complaint asserted two patents — US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 — both directed at electrical discharge machining (EDM) technology, specifically covering the E-Drill and FastEDR product lines. Plaintiff was represented by Marc E. Hankin of Hankin Patent Law APC.
The case closed on 19 June 2024, just 57 days after filing, via a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Perfect Point EDM under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice confirms that Scintam Engineering had not appeared, answered, or moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal. Critically, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Perfect Point EDM retains the right to refile the same claims against Scintam Engineering at a future date.
The speed of resolution — 57 days, with no defendant participation — is notable. A voluntary dismissal at this stage, before service is confirmed or before a defendant engages, can suggest a range of possibilities: a pre-litigation settlement reached privately, a tactical withdrawal to refile in a different venue, a change in enforcement strategy, or a resolution of the underlying commercial dispute. The public record does not disclose the reason, and no financial terms or licensing arrangements have been confirmed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 57 days
57 days — resolved before defendant appearance, well under median patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral plaintiff dismissal, no court order needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Scintam Engineering had not appeared, this right was available to Perfect Point EDM as a matter of right. No judicial approval was required, and no findings on the merits were made.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingThe public record is silent on whether this reflects a settlement
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff can refile the same claims — the lawsuit is ended, not the dispute. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. Here, Perfect Point EDM chose without prejudice, preserving all future options. Whether this reflects a private settlement, a licensing agreement, or a pure tactical withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record. The distinction matters: without prejudice leaves enforcement risk alive for Scintam Engineering.
Refiling risk remains openScintam Engineering avoided judgment — but exposure is not extinguished
Scintam Engineering never appeared, meaning it incurred no litigation costs and faces no adverse judgment. However, the without prejudice nature of the dismissal means it cannot treat this matter as permanently resolved. If no licensing arrangement was reached, Perfect Point EDM could reassert US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 in a new action. Scintam Engineering should treat its freedom-to-operate position on E-Drill and FastEDR-adjacent products as unresolved.
No judgment — but ongoing IP riskEDM sector: asserted patents remain enforceable and live
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and on no-merits grounds, US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 remain fully enforceable. No invalidity finding was made, and no claim construction was issued. Competitors operating in the electrical discharge machining space — particularly those offering portable or downhole EDM drilling tools — should note that these patents survived this litigation cycle intact. The dismissal provides no safe harbour for third parties.
Patents remain fully enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Perfect Point EDM Corporation | Company | Electrical discharge machining technology company — holder of US8963040B2 and US8278584B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Scintam Engineering LTD | Company | Scintam Engineering LTD — engineering firm, alleged infringer of EDM patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc E. Hankin. | Attorney | Counsel for Perfect Point EDM CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hankin Patent Law APC | Law Firm | Representing Perfect Point EDM CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly records that Scintam Engineering had not appeared, answered, or moved for summary judgment. This language is legally significant: it confirms the plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss and forecloses any argument that court approval was required. The without prejudice designation means no claim preclusion attaches — Perfect Point EDM’s patent rights under US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 are entirely unaffected, and the same allegations could be reasserted in a future action.
US8963040B2 & US8278584B2 — Electrical Discharge Machining Technology
US8963040B2 (application no. US13/093684) and US8278584B2 (application no. US12/930662) both protect electrical discharge machining technology as commercialised in Perfect Point EDM’s E-Drill and FastEDR product lines. EDM uses controlled electrical discharges to erode material — a precision technique used in aerospace, oil and gas downhole tools, and advanced manufacturing. These patents cover specific configurations and methods within that space, and both carry granted status with no publicly recorded invalidity proceedings at the time of this case.
For competitors in the portable or downhole EDM drilling market, these two patents represent an active enforcement asset. Perfect Point EDM’s willingness to file in federal court signals an intent to defend market position. The absence of any IPR or post-grant review on record means the patents have not been tested before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — a factor that may influence any future defendant’s response strategy. Companies designing or distributing EDM tools with overlapping functional characteristics should treat these patents as high-priority FTO targets.
Should your EDM product line be cleared against US8963040B2 and US8278584B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing electrical discharge machining tools — especially portable, battery-operated, or downhole EDM drilling systems — should assess its exposure to US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 before launch or expansion. Perfect Point EDM has demonstrated enforcement intent by filing in federal court, and the without prejudice dismissal means these patents remain fully in play. Product teams working on drill-out tools, wireline EDM cutters, or comparable precision machining equipment face the most direct risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support a validity challenge, and surface related prosecution history that could inform claim scope interpretation. Given that no court has construed these claims, an independent FTO analysis is the only reliable way to assess your design-around options or licensing exposure before a refiiled action names your products.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8963040B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar EDM and precision machining patent cases in US district courts
Explore related electrical discharge machining and precision drilling patent infringement cases filed in US district courts, including voluntary dismissals and early-stage resolutions.
What this case signals for the EDM technology IP landscape
A swift, unilateral dismissal before defendant engagement raises questions that matter for any company operating near Perfect Point EDM’s patent portfolio.
Without prejudice dismissal keeps enforcement pressure alive for Scintam
Perfect Point EDM’s choice of without prejudice dismissal is strategically significant. It preserves the ability to refile in California’s Southern District or any other jurisdiction. Companies with product lines adjacent to E-Drill or FastEDR technology should not interpret this dismissal as a signal that Perfect Point EDM has abandoned enforcement of these patents.
57-day timeline suggests pre-litigation resolution or tactical repositioning
Patent cases in US district courts rarely close this quickly without a formal settlement on the record. The fact that Scintam Engineering never appeared and the dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the earliest available mechanism — suggests either a private resolution was reached promptly, or the plaintiff is repositioning its enforcement strategy. Neither scenario weakens the underlying patent rights.
Perfect v Scintam — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Perfect Point EDM retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Scintam Engineering in the future. No merits ruling was made, no judgment was entered, and the asserted patents US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 remain fully enforceable. The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Scintam Engineering had appeared or responded.
Perfect Point EDM Corporation asserted two patents: US8963040B2 (application US13/093684) and US8278584B2 (application US12/930662). Both patents cover electrical discharge machining technology and are associated with the E-Drill and FastEDR product lines. Neither patent has been the subject of a publicly recorded IPR or post-grant review proceeding.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The dismissal was filed 57 days after the complaint and before Scintam Engineering appeared. This timing is consistent with a private settlement or licensing resolution reached early, a tactical decision to refile in a different jurisdiction, or a change in enforcement strategy. The without prejudice designation means all options remain open to the plaintiff.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Perfect Point EDM can refile patent infringement claims based on US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 against Scintam Engineering at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. There is no claim preclusion or res judicata effect from a without prejudice dismissal.
US8963040B2 and US8278584B2 are patents in the electrical discharge machining (EDM) domain, held by Perfect Point EDM Corporation. EDM technology uses controlled electrical discharges to erode conductive materials with high precision, with applications in aerospace, oil and gas, and advanced manufacturing. The patents are associated with the E-Drill and FastEDR product lines, which suggest portable or downhole EDM drilling applications.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.