Progenics v. MIM Software: AI-Powered Nuclear Medicine Patent Dispute Settles After 732 Days
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. MIM Software, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-10437 (D. Mass.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Duration | Feb 2024 – Feb 2026 732 days |
| Outcome | Confidential Settlement |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Contour Protégé AI® and MIM SurePlan™ MRT |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A biopharmaceutical and nuclear medicine company with a growing IP portfolio in oncology diagnostics, particularly prostate cancer imaging.
🛡️ Defendant
A Cleveland-based medical imaging software company widely used in radiation oncology, nuclear medicine, and radiosurgery workflows.
The Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved seven U.S. patents covering AI-assisted nuclear medicine imaging, bone scan analysis, and oncology treatment planning. These patents protect machine learning-based interpretation of scans, automated lesion detection, and AI-assisted treatment planning.
- • US10665346B2 — AI-assisted nuclear medicine imaging
- • US10973486B2 — Automated lesion detection
- • US11424035B2 — AI-assisted treatment planning
- • US11657508B2 — Machine learning for bone scan analysis
- • US11721428B2 — AI-driven diagnostic workflows
- • US11894141B2 — Quantitative nuclear medicine interpretation
- • US11941817B2 — AI for oncology imaging platforms
Developing AI-powered medical imaging tools?
Check if your product might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on February 17, 2026, after 732 days of litigation. No damages figure was publicly disclosed, and no injunction was entered by the court. The settlement included a “confidential condition precedent” before final dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, suggesting a complex negotiated resolution beyond a simple lump-sum payment.
Key Legal Issues
The legal battleground almost certainly included claim construction disputes over AI and medical imaging terminology, infringement contentions mapping MIM Software’s algorithms and clinical workflows to the asserted patent claims, and potential invalidity defenses. The settlement occurring just before an imminent claim construction deadline highlights the critical role of claim interpretation in complex AI patent litigation.
This case signifies an emerging trend: AI-enhanced medical imaging patents are increasingly assertable against software companies integrating machine learning into clinical tools, pushing the boundaries of IP enforcement in this rapidly evolving sector.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in AI Medical Imaging
This case highlights critical IP risks in AI-assisted oncology diagnostics. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation in AI medical imaging.
- View all 7 asserted patents and related filings
- See which companies are most active in AI oncology IP
- Understand AI patent claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own AI-powered medical imaging technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
AI-assisted oncology diagnostics
7 Asserted Patents
And others in AI medical imaging
Strategic Design-Arounds
Possible with deep IP analysis
✅ Key Takeaways for AI Medical Imaging IP
Seven-patent assertion in AI medical imaging is a viable high-pressure strategy that can drive settlement before Markman.
Search related case law →Confidential condition precedent settlement structures signal complex licensing arrangements worth tracking.
Explore precedents →Massachusetts District Court (Chief Judge Saris) remains a credible venue for sophisticated patent cases.
View court statistics →Frequently Asked Questions
Seven U.S. patents were asserted: US10665346B2, US10973486B2, US11424035B2, US11657508B2, US11721428B2, US11894141B2, and US11941817B2 — all covering AI-assisted nuclear medicine imaging and oncology diagnostics.
The parties reached a confidential settlement on February 17, 2026, after 732 days of litigation. Dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 was anticipated within thirty days of satisfying a confidential condition precedent.
It reinforces that AI-enhanced oncology imaging software is a viable and enforceable patent assertion target, particularly where patent portfolios are built across coordinated continuation families.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
- PACER Case Lookup – Case No. 1:24-cv-10437
- Massachusetts District Court IP Docket
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Fed. R. Civ. P. 41
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.