Serendia v. EndyMed Medical: Six-Patent RF Dermatology Dispute Voluntarily Dismissed
Serendia, LLC filed suit against EndyMed Medical, Inc. in Delaware federal court asserting six patents covering electrically-based and RF skin treatment devices and methods. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before EndyMed filed an answer, with each party bearing its own costs across a case that ran 861 days.
Six RF skin-treatment patents asserted, then quietly withdrawn in Delaware
On 1 March 2023, Serendia, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against EndyMed Medical, Inc. in the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews. The complaint asserted six U.S. patents — US11406444B2, US9775774B2, US10058379B2, US9320536B2, US9480836B2, and US10869812B2 — all directed to electrically-based medical treatment devices, RF-based dermatological treatment methods, and skin treatment apparatus.
The case closed on 9 July 2025 when Serendia filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has served an answer. EndyMed had not yet answered the complaint. The dismissal notice specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, leaving no financial obligation imposed on either side by the court.
The 861-day duration before a pre-answer dismissal is atypical and may suggest protracted pre-litigation negotiations, licensing discussions, or a commercial resolution that was never disclosed in public filings. The public record does not confirm whether a settlement was reached; the dismissal notice is silent on any underlying agreement. Without prejudice status is also unconfirmed — the notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) but does not expressly specify with or without prejudice.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 861 days
861 days from filing to closure — notably long for a pre-answer voluntary dismissal
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows dismissal as of right before answer
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because EndyMed had not yet answered, Serendia could and did invoke this right unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made.
No court order requiredThe public record is silent on prejudice status
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is without prejudice by default unless the notice expressly states otherwise. However, Serendia’s filing does not explicitly specify either with or without prejudice. This distinction is commercially significant: a without-prejudice dismissal preserves Serendia’s right to re-file on the same patents; a with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-filing. Practitioners should not assume either outcome from the public docket alone.
Prejudice status unconfirmedEndyMed exits without liability — but patent risk may persist
EndyMed Medical obtains dismissal without having to litigate or invalidate any of the six asserted patents. No finding of infringement, validity, or damages was made. If the dismissal is without prejudice (the default), EndyMed could face re-assertion of the same patent portfolio in the future, meaning the underlying IP risk is not extinguished by this outcome.
No invalidity ruling obtainedSix RF dermatology patents remain fully in force and unlitigated
All six patents asserted by Serendia emerge from this litigation untested and fully enforceable. Competitors and adjacent product developers in the RF skin treatment and medical aesthetics space should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The 861-day pendency before dismissal, combined with a mutual own-costs resolution, is consistent with either a licensing agreement or a strategic portfolio repositioning — neither of which reduces the patents’ assertability.
Portfolio remains assertableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Serendia, LLC | Company | Medical device IP holding company — holder of US11406444B2 and five related RF skin treatment patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | EndyMed Medical, Inc. | Company | EndyMed Medical, Inc. — manufacturer of RF-based skin tightening and dermatological treatment devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cecilia Sanabria | Attorney | Counsel for Serendia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles H. Sanders | Attorney | Counsel for Serendia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin C. Wheeler | Attorney | Counsel for Serendia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Serendia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Serendia, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony David Raucci | Attorney | Counsel for EndyMed Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian P. Egan | Attorney | Counsel for EndyMed Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for EndyMed Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing EndyMed Medical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in precise terms, confirming that EndyMed had not yet answered, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for a unilateral exit. The mutual own-costs clause is notable: it was not court-ordered but agreed — or at minimum, uncontested — suggesting some degree of coordination between the parties. No merits finding attaches to any of the six patents. The notice’s silence on prejudice status leaves the default statutory position (without prejudice) technically operative, preserving Serendia’s future enforcement options.
US11406444B2 — RF and electrically-based skin treatment devices and methods
The six asserted patents span three product and method categories: electrically-based medical treatment devices, RF dermatological treatment systems, and skin treatment apparatus. The earliest priority application (US13/825083, underlying US9320536B2) suggests a portfolio with roots in the early 2010s, while the most recent — US17/061523, underlying US11406444B2 — reflects continued prosecution activity into the 2020s. Together, they form a layered IP fence around RF and electrical energy delivery for aesthetic and therapeutic skin applications.
RF-based skin treatment is a high-value segment of the medical aesthetics market, with significant commercial activity from device manufacturers including those using fractional RF, monopolar, and bipolar energy delivery platforms. A portfolio of six patents spanning device architecture, treatment methods, and apparatus claims creates meaningful freedom-to-operate risk for any company designing or selling such devices in the US. The breadth of application numbers across multiple continuation families suggests further claim issuance is possible.
Should your RF aesthetics device be cleared against Serendia’s portfolio?
Any R&D team or product manager working on RF skin tightening, fractional RF, or electrically-based dermatological treatment devices for the US market should treat this six-patent portfolio as a live FTO concern. The patents were asserted against a commercially active device maker, and the absence of a validity ruling means no claims have been narrowed or cancelled. Pre-launch FTO analysis is essential, particularly for products using energy delivery methods that overlap with apparatus and method claims in this family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map independent claims across all six Serendia patents against your product’s technical architecture, surfacing prior art, claim scope, and prosecution history in one workflow. Eureka can also flag continuation applications in the same family that may issue future claims, and track Serendia’s litigation history across other defendants — giving your IP team the full enforcement picture before you invest in commercialisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11406444B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RF dermatology and medical device patent cases in Delaware
Cases involving RF skin treatment and electrical dermatological device patents litigated in the District of Delaware, with comparable enforcement and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the RF dermatology IP landscape
Six unlitigated RF skin treatment patents, a silent dismissal, and 861 days on the docket — here is what IP professionals need to watch.
Unresolved RF skin treatment patents are live enforcement tools
No claim in the Serendia portfolio was adjudicated, invalidated, or narrowed. All six patents — spanning electrical treatment devices, RF dermatology methods, and skin treatment apparatus — remain fully enforceable. Companies commercialising RF-based aesthetics devices should conduct FTO analysis against this portfolio before launch or expansion.
Rule 41 pre-answer exits can mask commercial settlements
An 861-day docket with no substantive motions resolved, ending in a pre-answer voluntary dismissal with mutual cost-bearing, is a pattern consistent with an out-of-court resolution. IP teams tracking Serendia’s licensing behaviour should note that the absence of a merits outcome does not mean the dispute was abandoned — it may signal a confidential licence.
Serendia v EndyMed — key questions answered
Serendia, LLC filed a patent infringement action against EndyMed Medical, Inc. in the District of Delaware in March 2023, asserting six patents covering RF and electrically-based skin treatment devices and methods. The case was voluntarily dismissed by Serendia on 9 July 2025 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before EndyMed had answered. Each party bore its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Serendia asserted six US patents: US11406444B2, US9775774B2, US10058379B2, US9320536B2, US9480836B2, and US10869812B2. These patents cover electrically-based medical treatment devices, dermatological treatment methods and systems, and skin treatment apparatus — all relevant to RF-based aesthetic and therapeutic device technology.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is filed by the plaintiff before the defendant answers, requires no court order, and is without prejudice by default unless expressly stated otherwise. The six Serendia patents were not adjudicated, invalidated, or narrowed. They remain fully enforceable, and Serendia retains the right to re-assert them unless the dismissal was expressly with prejudice — which the public record does not confirm.
The 861-day duration between filing and a pre-answer voluntary dismissal is longer than typical for cases resolved at this procedural stage. The public record does not explain the delay. It may suggest extended licensing negotiations, a commercial agreement that was not disclosed in court filings, or strategic timing considerations. No substantive motions on the merits appear to have been resolved during this period.
Potentially yes, if the dismissal was without prejudice. The default under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is without prejudice, meaning Serendia could re-file against EndyMed. Additionally, Serendia’s portfolio includes multiple patent families with active application numbers, raising the prospect of continuation patents issuing with new claims. EndyMed and other RF device manufacturers should monitor this portfolio for new filings and enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.