PM Holdings v. South Plains Surgery Center — Hybrid OR Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
PM Holdings, LLC sued South Plains Surgery Center, LLC in the Northern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering hybrid operating room design and construction. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after just 178 days, with each side bearing its own costs — leaving the door open for potential future litigation.
Swift exit in hybrid operating room IP dispute — but with refiling rights intact
On 11 August 2023, PM Holdings, LLC filed a patent infringement action against South Plains Surgery Center, LLC in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:23-cv-01803), presided over by Chief Judge Sam A. Lindsay. The suit centred on two patents — US9322188B2 and US9334664B2 — both relating to hybrid operating room design, covering elements such as X-ray imaging integration, IBC Class B construction standards, air change systems, and power room conduit configuration.
The case concluded on 5 February 2024 via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), signed by all appearing parties. Both PM Holdings’ infringement claims and South Plains Surgery Center’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Critically, each side agreed to bear its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting the settlement — if any underlying agreement exists — was negotiated outside the public record.
The 178-day duration is notably short for a two-patent infringement action, suggesting either early-stage resolution discussions, a licensing agreement reached privately, or a strategic decision by PM Holdings to pause litigation. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, PM Holdings retains the ability to refile. What precipitated the withdrawal — licensing, business settlement, or tactical repositioning — remains undisclosed from the public docket.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 178 days
178 days — resolved well under the median lifespan of comparable district court patent cases
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — consensual exit by all parties
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. This is a mutual, court-filed agreement — not a unilateral withdrawal. Its use here indicates both PM Holdings and South Plains Surgery Center agreed to step back from the litigation simultaneously, including the defendant’s counterclaims.
Mutual stipulated dismissalWithout prejudice — PM Holdings can refile these exact claims
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying dispute on the merits. PM Holdings retains the legal right to initiate a new action asserting US9322188B2 and US9334664B2 against South Plains Surgery Center. The public record is silent on whether any licensing agreement or business settlement underlies this exit — either outcome is legally consistent with this filing.
Refiling rights preservedEach side bears its own costs — no fee-shifting order
The stipulation explicitly states each side bears its own expenses, costs, and attorneys’ fees. This is a common arrangement in settled or privately resolved patent disputes, as it avoids the adversarial cost-shifting provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 285. It suggests neither party was in a position to claim prevailing-party status — consistent with a pre-merits resolution.
No § 285 fee awardDefendant’s counterclaims also dismissed — a clean mutual withdrawal
South Plains Surgery Center had filed counterclaims, which were likewise dismissed without prejudice under the same stipulation. This mutual withdrawal of both the plaintiff’s infringement claims and the defendant’s counterclaims is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic pause. It leaves all parties’ positions legally preserved, with no judicial findings on infringement or validity.
All counterclaims droppedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PM Holdings, LLC | Company | Healthcare IP holding company — asserting US9322188B2 and US9334664B2 hybrid OR patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | South Plains Surgery Center, LLC | Company | Texas-based surgical facility operator allegedly infringing hybrid operating room design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karl A. Rupp | Attorney | Counsel for PM Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew C. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for PM Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul S. Cha | Attorney | Counsel for PM Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Brunelli | Attorney | Counsel for PM Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott R. Bialecki | Attorney | Counsel for PM Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dustin M. Mauck | Attorney | Counsel for South Plains Surgery Center, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael B. Regitz | Attorney | Counsel for South Plains Surgery Center, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sam A. Lindsay | Chief Judge | Texas Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation explicitly invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and confirms dismissal of all plaintiff claims and defendant counterclaims without prejudice. This language is significant: no court adjudicated the merits, no infringement finding was made, and no validity ruling issued. The ‘own costs’ provision indicates the parties negotiated parity — neither side extracted a cost concession. From a litigation posture standpoint, South Plains Surgery Center has not secured any legal protection against future suit on these patents.
US9322188B2 & US9334664B2 — Hybrid Operating Room Design and Construction
US9322188B2 and US9334664B2 cover the design and construction of hybrid operating rooms — surgical suites that integrate advanced medical imaging equipment (specifically X-ray systems) with operating infrastructure including specialised power rooms, conduit routing, high-capacity air change systems, and hallway access design. Both patents were filed under application numbers US14/560789 and US14/560721 respectively, and are issued US grants. The claimed product in this case — a hybrid OR built to IBC Class B standards — reflects the intersection of medical device regulation and construction engineering.
Hybrid operating rooms represent a high-capital segment of hospital and ambulatory surgery centre infrastructure, with significant build-out costs and long facility lifecycles. Patents in this space can function as durable enforcement assets precisely because OR configurations are difficult to modify post-construction. Any healthcare facility operator, construction firm, or medical real estate developer involved in hybrid OR projects should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The filing of suit against a relatively small regional surgery centre suggests PM Holdings is willing to target facilities of any scale.
Should you run an FTO against US9322188B2 and US9334664B2?
Any hospital system, ambulatory surgery centre, or healthcare construction firm planning or currently operating a hybrid operating room that incorporates integrated X-ray imaging, dedicated power infrastructure, high-volume air change systems, and IBC Class B construction should assess freedom-to-operate against both patents. The scope of infringement alleged in this case extended to the physical configuration of an existing facility — meaning FTO review is relevant not just at design stage but for operational facilities as well.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your facility’s design parameters against the independent and dependent claims of US9322188B2 and US9334664B2, identify prior art that may limit enforceable claim scope, and flag related patent families that could represent additional exposure. Ongoing claim monitoring for both patents is advisable given PM Holdings’ demonstrated willingness to litigate and the unresolved status of this dismissal.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9322188B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hybrid operating room and healthcare facility patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the healthcare facility IP landscape
Hybrid OR patent enforcement is emerging. This case demonstrates that construction-focused healthcare IP is being actively asserted — and quietly resolved.
Hybrid OR design patents are enforceable — and being actively asserted
PM Holdings’ willingness to file suit against a surgery centre over physical OR configuration — including air systems, power conduits, and IBC standards compliance — confirms that construction-integrated healthcare patents carry real litigation risk. Any facility building or retrofitting a hybrid OR should assess US9322188B2 and US9334664B2 before breaking ground.
Without-prejudice exit leaves South Plains exposed to refiling risk
South Plains Surgery Center has not obtained a covenant not to sue or any judicial finding of non-infringement. If the underlying dispute was not resolved by private agreement, PM Holdings could refile in the same or a different venue. Defendant-side teams in analogous positions should treat a without-prejudice dismissal as a temporary ceasefire, not a full resolution.
PM v South — key questions answered
PM Holdings asserted two US patents: US9322188B2 and US9334664B2. Both cover hybrid operating room design and construction, including elements such as integrated X-ray imaging equipment, power room conduit infrastructure, high-capacity air change systems, and IBC Class B structural standards compliance.
The case was dismissed via a stipulation signed by all parties under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A without-prejudice dismissal does not resolve the case on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or private settlement underlay the exit. PM Holdings retains the right to refile the same claims in future.
South Plains Surgery Center obtained no judicial ruling on non-infringement or patent invalidity. PM Holdings retains the right to refile suit on US9322188B2 and US9334664B2. Unless a private covenant not to sue was negotiated (which is not disclosed in the public docket), South Plains remains exposed to future infringement claims on the same patents.
PM Holdings was represented by attorneys Karl A. Rupp, Matthew C. Miller, Paul S. Cha, Robert R. Brunelli, and Scott R. Bialecki, from Fox Rothschild LLP, Sheridan Ross PC, and Sorey & Hoover LLP. South Plains Surgery Center was represented by Dustin M. Mauck and Michael B. Regitz of RegitzMauck, PLLC.
The allegedly infringing product was a hybrid operating room at South Plains Surgery Center, described as including an X-ray imaging machine, an operating table, a power room with conduit, a high-capacity air change system, hallway access, and construction conforming to IBC Class B standards — all elements that map to the claimed configurations in US9322188B2 and US9334664B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.