TurboCode LLC v. Biotronik SE & Co. KG — Dismissed With Prejudice After 221 Days
TurboCode LLC filed suit against Biotronik SE & Co. KG in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US6813742B2 against Biotronik’s CardioMessenger Smart Transmitter, Renamic Neo, and Prospera Spinal Cord Stimulation System. The case closed after 221 days when TurboCode voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permanently extinguishing its ability to re-file the same claims.
TurboCode’s Voluntary Exit Closes Door on Biotronik IP Dispute
On March 31, 2025, TurboCode LLC — a patent assertion entity holding US6813742B2 — filed suit against Biotronik SE & Co. KG in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s most experienced patent jurists. The complaint targeted three Biotronik medical device products: the CardioMessenger Smart Transmitter, the Renamic Neo, and the Prospera Spinal Cord Stimulation System with Embrace One, alleging they infringed the asserted patent.
The case closed on November 7, 2025, when TurboCode filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, directed the Clerk to close the case, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — TurboCode is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Biotronik based on the same patent and accused products.
At 221 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for E.D. Texas patent litigation, suggesting settlement discussions or a strategic reassessment by TurboCode may have driven the exit before substantive motions practice. The public record does not disclose any licensing agreement or monetary settlement, and the mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated resolution — though this remains unconfirmed. What is clear is that Biotronik faces no further exposure on this patent from TurboCode.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 221 days
221 days — shorter than median E.D. Texas patent case lifespan
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. TurboCode exercised this right and elected to make the dismissal with prejudice — a stronger finality than required by the rule itself, which defaults to without prejudice. The court’s role here is ministerial: it accepted and acknowledged the dismissal rather than adjudicating the merits.
Final — no merits ruling issuedWith prejudice means the patent claims are permanently extinguished against Biotronik
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. TurboCode cannot re-file this infringement action against Biotronik on US6813742B2 regarding the same accused products. This is a materially stronger outcome for Biotronik than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave open the possibility of a refiled suit. The public record confirms the with-prejudice designation explicitly in the Notice (Dkt. No. 8).
Biotronik: permanently protected from re-filingTurboCode exits with no public recovery — and forfeits future enforcement
By electing a with-prejudice dismissal, TurboCode accepted a permanent bar on re-asserting these claims against Biotronik. The court’s cost-bearing order — each party pays its own — suggests no fee-shifting was awarded, though it does not confirm or deny a private settlement. TurboCode retains US6813742B2 and may still assert it against other defendants, but this specific enforcement campaign against Biotronik is conclusively closed.
No fee-shifting; enforcement rights vs. others retainedBiotronik’s cardiac and SCS product lines cleared of this patent threat
The dismissal with prejudice provides Biotronik commercial certainty on the CardioMessenger Smart Transmitter, Renamic Neo, and Prospera SCS System — products central to its cardiac monitoring and neuromodulation portfolio. Competitors and suppliers in the remote cardiac monitoring and spinal cord stimulation sectors should note that US6813742B2 remains in force and may be deployed against other market participants. The rapid resolution also suggests the asserted claims may have faced validity or claim-scope challenges that made continued litigation unattractive for TurboCode.
Biotronik cleared; patent remains active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TurboCode, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6813742B2 covering medical device communicationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Biotronik SE & Co. KG | Company | Biotronik SE & Co. KG — global manufacturer of cardiac and neuromodulation medical devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Biotronik SE & Co. KGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Biotronik SE & Co. KGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts TurboCode’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice as filed, without any merits adjudication. The with-prejudice designation — elected by TurboCode rather than imposed by the court — converts what is procedurally a unilateral notice into a final judgment with res judicata effect as to Biotronik. The denial of all pending relief as moot and the mutual cost-bearing order confirm no fee-shifting was awarded, though neither confirms nor excludes a private resolution reached between the parties.
US6813742B2 — Remote Monitoring and Communication for Implantable Medical Devices
US6813742B2, filed under application number US09/681093, protects technology relating to remote monitoring and data communication for implantable or wearable medical devices — a domain that encompasses cardiac event transmitters, neurostimulation controllers, and associated telemetry infrastructure. The patent’s issuance date and application history place it in an era of early wireless medical device connectivity, making it potentially broad relative to subsequent commercial implementations in the cardiac monitoring and spinal cord stimulation markets.
For Biotronik and its competitors, US6813742B2 represents the kind of foundational connectivity patent that NPEs have historically deployed across multiple defendants in succession. The accused product set — a cardiac transmitter, a cardiac monitoring platform, and a spinal cord stimulation system — suggests TurboCode construes the patent’s claims broadly enough to span both cardiac telemetry and neuromodulation communication architectures. Any company commercialising remote monitoring hardware for implantable devices in the US market should treat this patent as a material landscape risk until its expiry is confirmed.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US6813742B2?
If your organisation develops or supplies remote cardiac monitoring transmitters, home monitoring hubs for implantable devices, or spinal cord stimulation systems with wireless communication capability, US6813742B2 warrants direct FTO attention. TurboCode’s assertion against three distinct Biotronik product lines — spanning cardiac telemetry and SCS — demonstrates a broad claim-scope theory. The patent remains in force, and a dismissal against one defendant does not limit enforcement against others.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from US6813742B2 against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and surface the full patent family — including any continuations — that may present overlapping risk. Run a targeted FTO now to determine whether your remote monitoring or neuromodulation product roadmap intersects with TurboCode’s assertion portfolio before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6813742B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Remote Medical Device Monitoring in E.D. Texas
Explore related NPE patent infringement cases involving cardiac monitoring, neurostimulation, and medical device telemetry patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the medical device patent enforcement landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and patent quality in the cardiac monitoring and neuromodulation space.
With-prejudice dismissals signal more than a simple walk-away
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early — before any substantive motion practice — it typically signals either a private resolution or a reassessment of claim viability. Medical device companies defending similar suits in E.D. Texas should monitor TurboCode’s future assertion activity against other defendants to assess whether a licensing programme or abandonment of enforcement is the more likely explanation.
US6813742B2 remains a live patent — third-party exposure persists
TurboCode’s dismissal against Biotronik does not retire the patent. Manufacturers of remote cardiac monitoring transmitters, implantable neurostimulation systems, or related telemetry hardware should run a freedom-to-operate analysis against US6813742B2. The patent’s application date and claim scope relative to current product generations in the cardiac and SCS markets warrants close review, particularly given active enforcement activity.
TurboCode v Biotronik — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars TurboCode from reasserting US6813742B2 against Biotronik’s CardioMessenger Smart Transmitter, Renamic Neo, and Prospera SCS System based on the same claims. It operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata, providing Biotronik complete protection from TurboCode on this patent.
No. Because TurboCode elected a with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), it cannot refile the same claims against Biotronik on US6813742B2. A without-prejudice dismissal would have preserved that option, but TurboCode expressly chose the with-prejudice designation, closing the door permanently as to this defendant.
TurboCode accused three Biotronik products: the CardioMessenger Smart Transmitter (a remote cardiac monitoring device), the Renamic Neo (a cardiac monitoring platform), and the Prospera Spinal Cord Stimulation System with Embrace One (a neuromodulation system). The breadth of accused products across cardiac telemetry and SCS suggests TurboCode asserted broad communication-related claims.
TurboCode was represented by attorneys David R. Bennett and Steven Kalberg. Biotronik was represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP, a well-known East Texas patent litigation firm. The case was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
No. The dismissal with prejudice is specific to TurboCode’s claims against Biotronik. US6813742B2 remains in force, and TurboCode retains the right to assert it against other defendants in the cardiac monitoring, remote telemetry, or neurostimulation device markets. Companies with similar product architectures should conduct FTO analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.