Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. v. Certus Critical Care, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 18 Jan 2023, with US11253264B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11253264B2
- Application no.
- US16/450067
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01352
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Richard G. Andrews
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Oct 2022 – 18 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 97 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- System and method for low profile occlusion balloon catheter
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
System and method for low profile occlusion balloon catheter
An occlusion catheter system includes an inflation catheter member and an occlusion balloon. The proximal and distal balloon ends are connected to the inflation catheter between the proximal and distal catheter ends. A distal pressure sensor is attached to the inflation catheter member between the proximal balloon end and the atraumatic tip. An inflatable spine is connected to the inflation catheter. The proximal spine end is connected to the inflation catheter near the proximal balloon end and the distal spine end is connected to the inflation catheter near the distal balloon end. The occlusion balloon and the inflatable spine are configured to define blood flow channels with the internal surface and the external balloon surface when the occlusion catheter system is at least partially positioned in the vessel and the occlusion balloon and the inflatable spine are in a partially inflated configuration.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 22 Feb 2022
- Earliest priority
- 16 Aug 2016
- Est. expiry
- 22 Apr 2038
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- FRANKLIN, CURTIS J. · KRUMMENACHER, TODD J. · REYNOLDS, JEREMY · SPENCER, DAVID · FISHER, LUKE WILLIAM
- Classification
- A61B17/12A61M25/10A61M25/00A61M25/02A61B17/22
- Prosecution counsel
- PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
- Examiner
- ULSH, GEORGE J
Parties of record
Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61B17/12A61M25/10A61M25/00A61M25/02
- Counsel
- John David Simmons · Keith A. Jones
- Firm
- Panitch Schwarze, Belisario & Nadel LLP
Certus Critical Care, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Karen Jacobs
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| John David Simmons | Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Keith A. Jones | Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Karen Jacobs | Certus Critical Care, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Whereas Plaintiff Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. has moved to voluntary dismiss all pending claims without prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this __18th___day of January, 2023, that: All pending claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice.”
Case 1:22-cv-01352 · D. Del. · closed 18 January 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:22-cv-01352?
1:22-cv-01352 is a patent infringement action brought by Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. against Certus Critical Care, Inc., filed on 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 18 January 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-01352?
US11253264B2 (“System and method for low profile occlusion balloon catheter”), assigned to PRYTIME MEDICAL DEVICES, INC., currently active. The record also lists System and method for low profile occlusion balloon catheter.
How was case 1:22-cv-01352 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Whereas Plaintiff Prytime Medical Devices, Inc. has moved to voluntary dismiss all pending claims without prejudice, with each party to bear its own fees and costs; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this __18th___day of January, 2023, that: All pending claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:22-cv-01352 take?
97 calendar days, from filing on 13 Oct 2022 to closure on 18 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01352?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. John David Simmons and Keith A. Jones are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Prytime Medical Devices. Karen Jacobs appears for defendant Certus Critical Care.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01352 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.