Qfix Systems v. Klarity Medical Products: Patient Immobilizer Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Qfix Systems and Anholt Technologies brought an infringement action against Klarity Medical Products in Delaware District Court over US11364088B2, covering adjustable patient immobilization apparatus. After 871 days of litigation, the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice, each bearing its own legal costs — a resolution that permanently closes the door on these specific claims.
Stipulated exit after 871 days: reading the Qfix v. Klarity settlement signal
On January 23, 2023, Qfix Systems, LLC and co-plaintiff Anholt Technologies, Inc. (doing business as Qfix) filed a patent infringement action against Klarity Medical Products, LLC in the District of Delaware before Judge Christopher J. Burke. The suit centred on US11364088B2, a patent covering an adjustable immobilizer apparatus and associated method for immobilizing patients — technology directly relevant to radiation therapy and medical positioning markets in which both parties compete.
The case closed on June 12, 2025, via a joint stipulation dismissing all claims asserted by both parties with prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes, meaning Qfix and Anholt cannot reassert the same patent claims against Klarity in future litigation — and any counterclaims Klarity may have raised are equally extinguished.
An 871-day duration before a stipulated dismissal is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached after significant litigation investment — potentially following claim construction briefing or early discovery exchanges. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement, with no fee-shifting, suggests neither party secured a clearly dominant litigation position. The public record does not disclose any licensing terms, covenant-not-to-sue, or design-around agreement that may have accompanied the stipulation.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 871 days
871 days — above the median for patent cases in D. Del., suggesting substantive pre-trial activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the outcome means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice, entered by joint stipulation, operates as a final judgment on the merits. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the right to refile, this outcome permanently bars Qfix and Anholt from asserting the same US11364088B2 claims against Klarity in any future action. The stipulation covers ‘all claims asserted by the parties’, suggesting mutual releases of any counterclaims as well.
Res judicata appliesQfix surrenders future enforcement against Klarity on this patent
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Qfix Systems and Anholt Technologies permanently relinquish their ability to pursue Klarity under US11364088B2 for the conduct at issue. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other third parties. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests Qfix did not extract a financial settlement or licence payment — though any private commercial agreement would not appear in the public record.
Patent survives for othersKlarity obtains permanent peace from this infringement claim
For Klarity Medical Products, the with-prejudice dismissal provides durable protection from reassertion of these specific claims. Klarity cannot be hauled back into court by Qfix or Anholt on the same patent for the same accused products. The own-costs arrangement means Klarity also avoided an attorneys’ fees award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Whether Klarity made any product design changes or paid consideration remains undisclosed.
Claim preclusion securedPatient immobilization IP landscape: market tension without judicial clarity
Because the case resolved without a court ruling on infringement or validity, US11364088B2 emerges with no judicial gloss on its scope. Competitors other than Klarity remain exposed to enforcement risk. The resolution without merits adjudication is consistent with a competitive landscape where both parties may have preferred commercial certainty over legal precedent — a pattern common in specialised medical device markets with limited competitors.
No validity ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Qfix Systems, LLC | Company | Medical positioning technology company — holder of US11364088B2 (patient immobilizer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Anholt Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Klarity Medical Products, LLC | Company | Klarity Medical Products, LLC — medical device company offering competing patient immobilization productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew John Koopman | Attorney | Counsel for Qfix Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher H. Blaszkowski | Attorney | Counsel for Qfix Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC | Law Firm | Representing Qfix Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for Klarity Medical Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Travis J. Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Klarity Medical Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Klarity Medical Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Christopher J. Burke | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘all claims asserted by the parties are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE’ — is deliberately comprehensive. The phrase ‘all claims asserted by the parties’ covers both plaintiff infringement claims and any defensive counterclaims Klarity may have raised, including potential invalidity challenges. The with-prejudice designation triggers claim preclusion, preventing any future action on the same transactional nucleus. The own-costs clause is notable: it signals a negotiated equilibrium rather than capitulation by either side, and forecloses post-dismissal fee motions.
US11364088B2 — Adjustable Patient Immobilizer Apparatus and Method
US11364088B2, filed under application number US17/518420, protects an adjustable immobilizer apparatus and associated method for immobilizing patients — technology primarily relevant to radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and diagnostic imaging workflows where precise, reproducible patient positioning is critical. The patent’s claims likely cover structural and functional elements of the immobilization device that differentiate it from prior art in the medical positioning field. Issued patents in this category are commercially significant because reproducible immobilization directly impacts treatment accuracy and clinical outcomes.
In the competitive medical device market for patient positioning systems, proprietary immobilization technology represents a meaningful barrier to entry and a basis for premium pricing. US11364088B2 gives Qfix and Anholt a potential enforcement tool against any competitor whose adjustable immobilizer products fall within the claim scope. The fact that Klarity — a direct market competitor — was targeted suggests Qfix viewed its patent as broadly covering commercially relevant product designs. With no invalidity ruling issued, the patent’s enforceability against the broader market remains intact.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11364088B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising adjustable patient immobilization devices — particularly those used in radiation therapy, radiosurgery, or diagnostic imaging positioning — should assess freedom-to-operate against US11364088B2. The patent remains in force with no judicial narrowing of its claims. Given that Qfix pursued litigation through 871 days against a direct competitor, the patent holder has demonstrated enforcement willingness. R&D teams designing immobilizer apparatus should document design-around rationale before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim scope of US11364088B2 in minutes, flagging potentially overlapping independent and dependent claims. Eureka can also surface related family members, prosecution history estoppel signals, and co-pending applications that may extend the patent family’s reach into adjacent product designs — giving your IP and product teams a defensible clearance baseline before commercial commitment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11364088B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patient immobilization and medical device patent cases in D. Del.
Explore related patent infringement disputes involving medical positioning and immobilization device technology litigated in Delaware District Court.
What Qfix v. Klarity signals for the medical immobilization IP landscape
An 871-day litigation ending in mutual with-prejudice dismissal carries strategic signals that extend well beyond the two parties involved.
US11364088B2 remains enforceable — other competitors still face exposure
The dismissal resolves only the dispute with Klarity. Qfix retains full enforcement rights under US11364088B2 against any other party making, using, or selling adjustable patient immobilization products. Companies in the radiation therapy positioning space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before product launch.
Own-costs clause suggests no clear winner — both sides accepted litigation risk
In patent cases where one party prevails decisively, fee-shifting under § 285 or a cost award typically follows. The mutual own-costs arrangement here suggests neither Qfix nor Klarity had sufficient leverage to extract fees. This is consistent with genuine claim validity or infringement uncertainty that made continued litigation commercially unattractive for both sides.
Qfix v Klarity — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Qfix Systems and Anholt Technologies from reasserting the claims in this action against Klarity Medical Products. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Klarity cannot be sued again by Qfix or Anholt on the same US11364088B2 claims for the same accused conduct. However, the patent remains enforceable against unrelated third parties.
No. The case resolved by joint stipulation before any merits ruling. Neither infringement nor validity of US11364088B2 was adjudicated by the court. The patent carries no judicial finding of invalidity or non-infringement as a result of this case, meaning its legal presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 is fully intact for purposes of any future enforcement against third parties.
The mutual own-costs arrangement, with no fee-shifting, suggests the parties reached a commercially negotiated resolution without either side establishing the legal dominance needed to support a § 285 exceptional case fee motion. It is consistent with genuine uncertainty on infringement or validity, or with a private settlement arrangement that rendered fee recovery unnecessary. The public record does not disclose specific reasons for this allocation.
The case ran for 871 days from filing on January 23, 2023 to closure on June 12, 2025. This duration is above the median for patent cases in the District of Delaware and is consistent with a case that progressed through substantive pretrial stages — potentially including claim construction briefing, discovery, and expert work — before the parties agreed to resolve the dispute by stipulated dismissal.
No. The dismissal resolves only the dispute between Qfix/Anholt and Klarity. US11364088B2 remains fully enforceable against any other company whose adjustable patient immobilization products fall within its claim scope. The absence of any invalidity ruling or claim construction order from this case means there is no judicial precedent narrowing the patent’s reach, leaving the full claim scope available for future enforcement actions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.