SoftWave v. Launch Medical & Moon Pool: ESWT Patent Infringement Stayed After 259 Days
SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies filed suit against Launch Medical and Moon Pool — makers of the Phoenix and the Rocket devices — asserting three patents covering acoustic wave therapy technology. After 259 days, the California Central District Court stayed proceedings pending a February 2025 preliminary injunction hearing in a related action, signalling that the broader dispute remains actively contested.
Three ESWT Patents, Two Defendants, and a Coordinated Stay Strategy
On 12 April 2024, SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-02989) against Launch Medical, Inc. and Moon Pool, LLC. The complaint centres on three issued U.S. patents — US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2 — all covering extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) technology, and targets the defendants’ accused products marketed as ‘The Phoenix’ and ‘The Rocket’ acoustic wave therapy devices.
On 27 December 2024, the court granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Stay Proceedings, ordering all activity in this case suspended until 20 February 2025. The stay was granted to allow the parties to assess the most efficient path forward following a 19 February 2025 hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction in a separate but related action. The court directed the clerk to remove the case from its active caseload pending further application or order, suggesting the outcome of that related proceeding is expected to materially shape — or potentially resolve — this action.
The 259-day timeline to a stay, rather than a merits ruling, is consistent with a plaintiff using parallel proceedings strategically to maximise litigation leverage. The existence of a related action with a pending preliminary injunction hearing suggests SoftWave may be pursuing injunctive relief in a coordinated multi-front campaign. What remains unknown from the public record is the identity of the related case, whether the same patents are at issue there, and the precise commercial relationship between the defendants and the accused devices.
Filing to Case Stayed in 259 days
259 days — resolved to stay in under 9 months, faster than median U.S. patent district court disposition
Case stayed pending related injunction: what the order means for both sides
A stay is not a dismissal — the case remains live
A court-ordered stay suspends all procedural activity without terminating or deciding the action. Here, the stay was consensual — both parties stipulated to it — suggesting a shared interest in awaiting the related preliminary injunction outcome before committing to litigation strategy. The case remains on the docket and can be reactivated on five days’ notice following the February 2025 hearing.
Proceedings paused, not endedSoftWave preserves optionality while pursuing injunctive relief elsewhere
By securing a stay in this action while simultaneously pressing a preliminary injunction in a related case, SoftWave maintains enforcement pressure on the defendants without incurring full discovery costs here. A favourable injunction ruling in the related proceeding could strengthen its negotiating position — or moot the need for continued litigation in this case entirely if the defendants alter or withdraw their accused products.
Parallel enforcement strategyLaunch Medical and Moon Pool face continued commercial uncertainty
For Launch Medical and Moon Pool, the stay offers temporary procedural relief but no resolution on patent validity or infringement. The February 2025 preliminary injunction hearing in the related case could result in a court order restricting the sale of the Phoenix or Rocket devices. Their agreement to the stay suggests they too prefer to consolidate the dispute around the injunction proceeding before expending litigation resources here.
Injunction risk remains liveESWT market faces patent enforcement uncertainty into 2025
With three ESWT patents asserted and a preliminary injunction hearing pending, the at-home and clinical acoustic wave therapy device market faces continued IP uncertainty. Competitors in the ESWT space — particularly those commercialising devices that deliver acoustic or shock wave energy for tissue regeneration — should monitor the outcome of the related preliminary injunction and any subsequent reactivation of this case as a leading indicator of SoftWave’s enforcement posture.
Monitor Feb 2025 hearingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC | Company | Acoustic wave therapy IP licensor — holder of US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Launch Medical, Inc. | Company | Launch Medical, Inc. and Moon Pool, LLC — makers of the Phoenix and Rocket ESWT devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Moon Pool, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacqueline K. Burt | Attorney | Counsel for SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven W. Ritcheson | Attorney | Counsel for SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Insight PLC | Law Firm | Representing SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural, not substantive — it reflects a consensual stay rather than any finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The phrasing ‘good cause to exist’ is the standard threshold for a discretionary stay and carries no implication of merit on either side. The instruction to ‘remove this case from the Court’s active caseload’ signals administrative suspension only; the action remains legally pending and can be restored. The parties’ obligation to file a joint status report within five days of the related injunction ruling indicates this case is tightly coupled to that proceeding.
US8535249B2, US7601127B2 & US7841995B2 — ESWT Acoustic Wave Therapy Devices
The three asserted patents — US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2 — cover extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) technology, a modality that delivers unfocused or planar acoustic wave energy to tissue for therapeutic purposes including pain relief, erectile dysfunction treatment, and tissue regeneration. The application numbers span a period of active innovation in acoustic wave delivery, with filings traceable to the mid-2000s through early 2010s. These patents sit within a technical domain that bridges medical devices, bioacoustics, and non-invasive tissue treatment.
SoftWave’s portfolio covering ESWT devices is strategically significant because the accused products — The Phoenix and The Rocket — are positioned in the at-home men’s health device market, a high-growth consumer medical device category. Holding three layered patents across device structure and method claims creates a broad enforcement perimeter. For competitors in the acoustic wave therapy space, these patents represent a meaningful barrier to entry, particularly for any device that replicates the wave delivery geometry or treatment protocols covered in these claims.
Should you run an FTO against US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing ESWT or acoustic wave therapy devices in the United States — whether clinical-grade or direct-to-consumer — should prioritise freedom-to-operate clearance against all three SoftWave patents. The Phoenix and Rocket products are directly accused, but the claim language in ESWT patents often reads broadly on device geometry and wave delivery mechanisms, potentially capturing adjacent product categories including pelvic health, sports recovery, and wound care devices.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim elements from US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2 against your device specifications in minutes, surfacing design-around options and identifying whether continuation applications in these families have extended claim scope since the original grants. Given SoftWave’s active enforcement posture, proactive FTO analysis is materially lower cost than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8535249B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ESWT and Acoustic Wave Therapy Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving extracorporeal shock wave and acoustic wave therapy devices litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the ESWT and acoustic wave therapy IP landscape
SoftWave’s multi-front enforcement campaign across California federal courts suggests a maturing patent assertion strategy in the ESWT device sector.
Multi-patent, multi-defendant filings signal an aggressive enforcement posture
Asserting three patents against two co-defendants in a single action, while simultaneously pursuing a preliminary injunction in a related case, is consistent with a plaintiff seeking rapid commercial leverage rather than a long damages trial. Parties in the ESWT market should treat this filing as an indicator that SoftWave intends to actively police its acoustic wave therapy portfolio.
Preliminary injunction in a related case is the key event to watch
The entire trajectory of this action depends on the 19 February 2025 hearing in the related proceeding. A grant of preliminary injunction would substantially raise the pressure on Launch Medical and Moon Pool; a denial would reduce SoftWave’s leverage and likely accelerate merits litigation here. IP teams in the ESWT sector should docket this date and monitor the ruling.
SoftWave v Launch — key questions answered
As of 27 December 2024, the case is stayed by court order until at least 20 February 2025. The stay was granted on the parties’ joint stipulation pending the outcome of a preliminary injunction hearing in a separate but related action. The case is not dismissed and remains legally pending in the Central District of California.
SoftWave asserted three U.S. patents: US8535249B2, US7601127B2, and US7841995B2. All three cover extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) technology and are directed to acoustic wave therapy device systems and methods used in tissue regeneration and treatment applications.
The accused products are ‘The Phoenix’ and ‘The Rocket,’ both marketed as acoustic wave therapy devices by the defendants Launch Medical, Inc. and Moon Pool, LLC. These are consumer-facing ESWT devices positioned in the men’s health and tissue regeneration market.
The court stayed the action because a related but separate proceeding involving a motion for preliminary injunction was scheduled for hearing on 19 February 2025. Both parties stipulated to the stay, agreeing that the injunction hearing’s outcome would help determine the most efficient course of action for this case. The court found good cause and removed the case from its active caseload.
No. A stay is a procedural suspension, not a merits decision. The court made no finding on infringement, patent validity, or damages. The stay order requires the parties to file a joint status report within five days of the related injunction ruling, at which point the case may be reactivated, consolidated, or resolved by the parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.