Qfix Systems v. Klarity Medical Products: Radiotherapy Immobilization Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Qfix Systems and co-plaintiff Anholt Technologies (d/b/a CQ Medical) sued Klarity Medical Products in Delaware over two patents covering patient immobilization technology used in radiotherapy. The case targeted Klarity’s BiteLok® device. After 199 days, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, each bearing their own costs.
A settled immobilization patent dispute resolved before discovery could deepen
Filed on 25 November 2024 in the District of Delaware before Judge Christopher J. Burke, this infringement action saw Qfix Systems, LLC and Anholt Technologies, Inc. (collectively operating as CQ Medical) assert two patents — US11992430B2 and US11523929B2 — against Klarity Medical Products, LLC. The patents at issue relate to patient immobilization technology used in radiotherapy settings, and the accused product was Klarity’s BiteLok® device, a thermoplastic bite-block immobilization system used to stabilise patients during radiation treatment.
The case closed on 12 June 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under which all claims asserted by the plaintiffs were extinguished. Critically, the stipulation specified that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiffs are permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Klarity based on these two patents for the accused BiteLok® product, making this a full and final resolution on the pleaded infringement theories.
At 199 days from filing to closure, the case resolved well ahead of the typical Delaware patent litigation timeline, which commonly extends two to three years through trial. This pace, combined with the mutual cost-bearing arrangement, is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before significant litigation costs accrued — possibly involving a licensing arrangement or commercial settlement whose financial terms remain confidential. The public record is silent on whether any licence, royalty, or design-around agreement underlies the dismissal.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 199 days
199-day resolution — notably faster than the median D. Del. patent case, suggesting early negotiation
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars all re-filing
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a jointly agreed, court-approved termination that extinguishes the asserted claims permanently. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, the plaintiffs cannot refile the same infringement claims against Klarity for the BiteLok® device under US11992430B2 or US11523929B2. The court did not adjudicate validity or infringement on the merits; the dismissal is procedural and reflects mutual consent rather than any judicial finding.
Full and final resolutionCQ Medical forfeits further action under these claims against Klarity
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Qfix and Anholt Technologies (CQ Medical) permanently relinquish the right to pursue these specific infringement claims against Klarity’s BiteLok® device. The patents US11992430B2 and US11523929B2 remain valid and enforceable against third parties. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither side extracted a clear litigation victory; any commercial settlement terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Claims extinguished vs. KlarityKlarity secures permanent closure — but pays its own legal costs
Klarity Medical Products achieved permanent dismissal of all infringement claims relating to the BiteLok® device without any merits adjudication against it. The absence of a court ruling on infringement or validity means Klarity’s commercial position is protected by the procedural bar rather than a judicial finding of non-infringement. Klarity must absorb its own legal fees, suggesting the parties reached equilibrium rather than Klarity extracting an unconditional capitulation from plaintiffs.
No merits finding — procedural bar onlyImmobilization device sector: two active patents remain live threats
US11992430B2 and US11523929B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other manufacturers of radiotherapy patient immobilization systems. Competitors developing bite-block or thermoplastic mask technology should note that CQ Medical retains these patents as enforceable IP assets. The swift resolution and sealed settlement terms leave the scope of any licensing arrangement opaque, creating ongoing freedom-to-operate uncertainty for the broader radiotherapy immobilization device market.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Qfix Systems, LLC | Company | Radiotherapy immobilization systems company — holder of US11992430B2 and US11523929B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Klarity Medical Products, LLC | Company | Klarity Medical Products, LLC — maker of the BiteLok® radiotherapy patient immobilization deviceSearch 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 explicit ‘WITH PREJUDICE’ language is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring the same claims by these plaintiffs against this defendant. The mutual cost-bearing clause — no fee-shifting — indicates the parties reached parity in their negotiation. No claim construction, invalidity finding, or damages determination was issued, leaving the patents’ commercial scope entirely intact for enforcement against the broader market.
US11992430B2 & US11523929B2 — Radiotherapy Patient Immobilization Systems
US11992430B2 (application number US17/980303) and US11523929B2 (application number US15/602372) both relate to patient immobilization technology used in radiotherapy. The earlier patent, US11523929B2, has an application date traceable to 2017, suggesting foundational priority claims in head and neck immobilization for radiation therapy. US11992430B2, filed in 2022, likely represents a continuation or improvement covering updated configurations. Together they form a layered IP position across immobilization system design — a domain critical to treatment accuracy in stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery.
In the radiotherapy equipment sector, patient immobilization accuracy directly affects treatment outcome reproducibility, making proprietary bite-block and thermoplastic mask systems commercially significant. Klarity’s BiteLok® is a directly competing product in this segment. CQ Medical’s dual-patent assertion signals an intent to use this IP portfolio offensively against competing immobilization device manufacturers. Companies active in radiotherapy accessory design — including mask systems, indexed base plates, and bite-block platforms — should assess claim scope against both patents to evaluate competitive exposure.
Should your radiotherapy immobilization product be cleared against US11992430B2?
Any company developing or commercialising bite-block, thermoplastic mask, or patient head-fixation systems for radiotherapy should treat both US11992430B2 and US11523929B2 as active FTO concerns. The BiteLok® case shows CQ Medical is prepared to assert these patents in federal court, and the with-prejudice dismissal provides no public claim construction that would help define safe design space. R&D and product teams should map their device architecture against both patent claim sets before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim landscape of US11992430B2 and US11523929B2, identify related family members, and flag overlapping prior art that may inform design-around options. Eureka’s patent analytics can also surface CQ Medical’s broader portfolio — including any pending continuations — so your legal and engineering teams can assess the full enforcement perimeter before committing to a device configuration.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11992430B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar radiotherapy device patent infringement cases in federal court
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving radiotherapy and medical immobilization device technology filed in Delaware and other federal district courts.
What this case signals for the radiotherapy immobilization IP landscape
A fast, mutual-cost dismissal in Delaware typically reflects a commercial resolution. The patents asserted here remain live enforcement tools.
Rapid dismissal in D. Del. signals early commercial negotiation
At 199 days, this case closed far faster than the typical Delaware patent trial schedule. Combined with a mutual cost-bearing term, this pattern is consistent with a negotiated licence or cross-agreement reached before claim construction or substantial discovery — a signal that both parties prioritised commercial certainty over litigation risk.
US11992430B2 and US11523929B2 remain enforceable against all third parties
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars CQ Medical from re-suing Klarity on these claims. Any other manufacturer of radiotherapy immobilization devices — bite blocks, thermoplastic masks, head restraint systems — remains fully exposed to assertion under both patents. No validity or claim scope ruling was issued, so these patents carry full presumption of validity.
Qfix v Klarity — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 12 June 2025 by stipulation of the parties. All infringement claims asserted by Qfix Systems and Anholt Technologies (CQ Medical) against Klarity Medical Products were extinguished. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued.
Qfix Systems and co-plaintiff Anholt Technologies asserted two patents: US11992430B2 (application US17/980303) and US11523929B2 (application US15/602372). Both patents relate to patient immobilization technology used in radiotherapy treatment settings. The accused product was Klarity Medical Products’ BiteLok® device.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars CQ Medical from re-filing the same infringement claims against Klarity’s BiteLok® device under US11992430B2 and US11523929B2. However, both patents remain valid and fully enforceable against any other party. The dismissal does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or invalidity — it is a procedural termination by mutual agreement.
At 199 days, the case resolved significantly faster than the typical Delaware patent trial schedule, which routinely extends beyond two years. This pace, combined with mutual cost-bearing rather than fee-shifting, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or cross-commercial arrangement — reached before substantial discovery or claim construction proceedings occurred. The specific terms are not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars CQ Medical from suing Klarity on these specific claims. Both patents retain their full presumption of validity and remain enforceable against third parties. No claim construction ruling, invalidity finding, or scope limitation was issued during the litigation, leaving the patents’ enforceable boundaries undefined and intact for future assertion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.