Syntorr, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Feb 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 1 Jun 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00170
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Feb 2025 – 1 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 473 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- The Arthrex 3 mm Knotless SutureTak® (“SutureTak®”), the Arthrex Knotless 1.8 FiberTak® (“FiberTak®”), Knotless Corkscrew Meniscal Root repair device, and the Arthrex Knotless SwiveLock® (“SwiveLock®”) anchor devices
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
Variable denier yarn and suture
A textile yarn includes a first segment and a second segment. The first segment includes a plurality of first strands and has a substantially constant first denier. The second segment includes a plurality of second strands integrated together and has a substantially constant second denier. There are more second strands in the second segment than first strands in the first segment such that the second denier is greater than the first denier. A first portion of the plurality of second strands is made from a first plurality of yarn elements that extend through the first and second segments. A second portion of the plurality of second strands is made from a second plurality of yarn elements present in the second segment and not the first segment. The yarn elements in the second plurality of yarn elements terminate in a transition zone between the first segment and the second segment.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 Nov 2014
- Earliest priority
- 2 Feb 2011
- Est. expiry
- 15 Jul 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MARTIN, DANIEL, L.
- Classification
- A61B17/06D04C1/12D04B1/22A61B17/00D04B21/20
- Prosecution counsel
- MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
- Examiner
- HURLEY, SHAUN R
Variable denier yarn and suture
A method of suturing includes: (1) wrapping a first segment of a suture through a traction loop; (2) pulling the traction loop and the first segment through an opening in a suture lock; (3) continuing to pull the traction loop such that a second segment of the suture extends through the opening, wherein the second segment has a greater denier than the first segment such that the second segment more nearly fills an entire dimension of the opening than the first segment; and (4) locking the suture in place with the second segment in the opening.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Nov 2023
- Earliest priority
- 4 Oct 2011
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MARTIN
- Classification
- A61B17/06D04C1/12D04B1/22D04B21/20A61B17/00A61F2/06
- Prosecution counsel
- MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
- Examiner
- LYNCH, ROBERT A
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Syntorr, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61B17/06D04C1/12D04B1/22A61B17/00
- Counsel
- Andrea Leigh Fair · Christian Taylor Tatum · Jodi Benassi · Kyle Soren Sorenson · Sarah Chapin Columbia · Sarah Jane Fischer · Syed Kamil Fareed
- Firm
- Goodwin Proctor LLP (Boston), McDermott Will & Emery LLP, McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, Miller Fair Henry PLLC
Arthrex, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew J. Wright · Anthony Kyle Bruster · Anthony P Cho · Brian S. Tobin · David Louis Atallah · Eric M. Albritton · Jason Michael Dorsky · Jonathan Lee Falkler · Megan S. Woodworth · Michael Alexander Szypa Jr. · Michael J Schwartz · Shawn A. Latchford
- Firm
- Carlson Gaskey & Olds PC, Eric M. Albritton PC, Larson Bruster PLLC, Venable LLP, Venable LLP (Washington DC)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrea Leigh Fair | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Christian Taylor Tatum | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jodi Benassi | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Kyle Soren Sorenson | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Sarah Chapin Columbia | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Sarah Jane Fischer | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Syed Kamil Fareed | Syntorr, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Andrew J. Wright | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Anthony Kyle Bruster | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Anthony P Cho | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Brian S. Tobin | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| David Louis Atallah | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Eric M. Albritton | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jason Michael Dorsky | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jonathan Lee Falkler | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Megan S. Woodworth | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael Alexander Szypa Jr. | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael J Schwartz | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
| Shawn A. Latchford | Arthrex, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Syntorr, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) and Arthrex Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 111.) In the Stipulation, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Case 2:25-cv-00170 · E.D. Tex. · closed 1 June 2026
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 2:25-cv-00170?
2:25-cv-00170 is a patent infringement action brought by Syntorr, Inc. against Arthrex, Inc., filed on 13 Feb 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 1 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:25-cv-00170?
US8881635B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC., currently active; US11806006B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC., currently active; US11849938B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC.; US11116498B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC.; US12279766B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC.; US11712241B2 (“Variable denier yarn and suture”), assigned to SYNTORR INC.. The record also lists The Arthrex 3 mm Knotless SutureTak® (“SutureTak®”), the Arthrex Knotless 1.8 FiberTak® (“FiberTak®”), Knotless Corkscrew Meniscal Root repair device, and the Arthrex Knotless SwiveLock® (“SwiveLock®”) anchor devices.
How was case 2:25-cv-00170 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Syntorr, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) and Arthrex Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 111.) In the Stipulation, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-00170 take?
473 calendar days, from filing on 13 Feb 2025 to closure on 1 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00170?
Andrea Leigh Fair, Christian Taylor Tatum, Jodi Benassi, Kyle Soren Sorenson, Sarah Chapin Columbia, Sarah Jane Fischer and Syed Kamil Fareed are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Syntorr. Andrew J. Wright, Anthony Kyle Bruster, Anthony P Cho, Brian S. Tobin, David Louis Atallah, Eric M. Albritton, Jason Michael Dorsky, Jonathan Lee Falkler, Megan S. Woodworth, Michael Alexander Szypa Jr., Michael J Schwartz and Shawn A. Latchford appear for defendant Arthrex.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00170 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.