Philips v. Haemonetics: Intravascular Pressure Sensor Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice

📄 View Full Report 📥 Export PDF 🔗 Share ⭐ Save

📋 Case Summary

Case Name Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Haemonetics Corporation et al.
Case Number 1:24-cv-00206 (D. Del.)
Court U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Duration Feb 2024 – Sep 2025 568 days
Outcome Dismissed With Prejudice (Stipulated)
Patents at Issue
Accused Products XTender, SavvyWire, OptoWire series, OptoMonitor, and other intravascular measurement and monitoring platforms.

Case Overview

The Parties

⚖️ Plaintiff

Global health technology leader with an extensive IP portfolio in diagnostic imaging and interventional cardiology, co-asserting rights with IP2IPO Innovations, Ltd.

🛡️ Defendant

Publicly traded medical technology company that acquired OpSens Inc., now a major competitor in cardiovascular pressure sensing products.

Patents at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. 10,912,463 B2, covering methods and systems related to intravascular pressure measurement, specifically the computation of **Diastolic Pressure Ratio (dPR)**.

  • US 10,912,463 B2 — Diastolic Pressure Ratio (dPR) computation for coronary artery stenosis assessment.
🔍

Developing a similar medical device?

Check if your cardiovascular pressure sensor technology might infringe this or related patents.

Run FTO Check →

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case closed via **stipulated dismissal with prejudice** on September 5, 2025. All claims and causes of action between the parties are permanently extinguished. Critically, each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, indicating no fee-shifting or damages award in either direction.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal with prejudice, agreed to by both sides without a judicial determination on validity or infringement, is characteristic of a confidential settlement. Influencing factors likely included claim scope uncertainty surrounding dPR computation patents, Haemonetics’ commercial integration of OpSens making an injunction highly disruptive, and Philips’ licensing-oriented enforcement strategy.

✍️

Drafting medical device patents?

Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand medtech litigation.

Try Patent Drafting →

Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP

From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.

⚠️ FTO Analysis for Cardiovascular Devices

This case highlights critical IP risks in intravascular pressure measurement. Choose your next step:

📋 Understand This Case’s Impact

Learn about the specific risks and implications for cardiovascular device innovation.

  • View Philips’ full dPR patent family
  • Identify key competitors in pressure wire technology
  • Analyze claim construction patterns for diagnostic patents
📊 View Patent Landscape
⚠️
High Risk Area

dPR and resting index computation methods

📋
Philips’ Patent Family

Actively asserted in this space

Strategic Takeaways

Early FTO critical for system-level IP

✅ Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys & Litigators

Stipulated dismissals with prejudice in Delaware often signal confidential licensing resolutions; prepare for Markman to maximize leverage.

Search related case law →

Chief Judge Connolly’s court demands rigorous standing and funding disclosures; joint plaintiffs require unified litigation authority agreements.

Explore precedents →

For IP Professionals & R&D Leaders

Intravascular pressure computation methods — including dPR, iFR, and resting indices — carry active patent risk; FTO analysis must cover method claims, not just hardware.

Start FTO analysis for my product →

System-level infringement exposure (guidewire + monitor + software) means full ecosystem review is required before product launch.

Try AI patent drafting →

Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?

Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.

⚖️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general legal principles. For specific advice regarding patent litigation, FTO analysis, or IP strategy concerning medical devices or cardiovascular technologies, please consult a qualified patent attorney.