VDPP LLC v. Clarius Mobile Health Corp. — Dismissed With Prejudice in 91 Days
VDPP, LLC asserted two image capture and streaming patents against Clarius Mobile Health Corp. in the District of Delaware. Before Clarius filed any answer or dispositive motion, VDPP elected to voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice — permanently relinquishing its right to re-file on these patents against this defendant.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 91 days
91 days — resolved before any responsive pleading was filed
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what each party gains and loses
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. VDPP exercised this right here, but critically chose to specify that dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE — a stricter outcome than the rule’s default, which would ordinarily be without prejudice.
Pre-answer dismissalWith prejudice: VDPP permanently forfeits these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. VDPP cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against Clarius Mobile Health on US9699444B2 or US9716874B2. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff — the typical Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) default would have allowed re-filing. That VDPP affirmatively agreed to the with-prejudice condition suggests a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision to permanently close the matter.
No re-filing permittedClarius exits without admitting infringement or invalidity
Clarius Mobile Health Corp. achieved termination of the litigation without filing an answer, incurring the cost of full discovery, or making any admission regarding the asserted patents. The with-prejudice dismissal shields Clarius from future suit by VDPP on these two patents. Whether any commercial terms accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
Clean exit for defendantEarly with-prejudice exit: what it signals for the imaging IP market
VDPP’s rapid with-prejudice dismissal — before any substantive engagement — is consistent with either a private settlement or a portfolio licensing agreement reached off-docket. For other companies operating in image capture, streaming, and display technology, this case suggests VDPP holds potentially licensable patents but may be willing to resolve disputes quickly. Third parties should note the patents remain valid and enforceable against others.
Patents remain live vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Clarius Mobile Health Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert M. Vrana | Attorney | Counsel for Clarius Mobile Health Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samantha G. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Clarius Mobile Health Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Y. Carson Zhou | Attorney | Counsel for Clarius Mobile Health Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Clarius Mobile Health Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and states that VDPP ‘agrees that the dismissal shall be WITH PREJUDICE.’ This language is plaintiff-initiated and self-executing — no court order was required. The with-prejudice qualifier extinguishes VDPP’s right to reassert the same claims against Clarius, functioning as a final disposition on the merits without any judicial finding of infringement or invalidity. The public record does not disclose whether any commercial consideration was exchanged.
US9699444B2 & US9716874B2 — Image Capture, Streaming and Display Technology
US9699444B2 (application no. US15/217612) and US9716874B2 (application no. US15/212114) both fall within the field of image capture, streaming, modification, and displaying — a technology domain directly relevant to portable and mobile imaging devices, including wireless ultrasound systems such as those manufactured by Clarius. The two applications were filed within days of each other, suggesting a coordinated filing strategy around a common inventive concept.
For the medical and mobile health imaging sector, these patents carry meaningful enforcement risk. Portable ultrasound devices that wirelessly stream image data to smartphones or tablets — a growing product category — sit squarely within the asserted technology domain. VDPP’s decision to assert both patents together against a wireless ultrasound vendor suggests it views the claims as broadly applicable to products combining image acquisition hardware with streaming and display software components.
Should you run an FTO against US9699444B2 and US9716874B2?
Any company developing or commercialising products in the image capture, wireless streaming, or real-time display space — particularly in mobile health, portable diagnostics, or medical imaging — should assess its exposure to these two patents. VDPP has demonstrated willingness to assert them in litigation, and the with-prejudice dismissal confirms they were not invalidated or disclaimed. The patents remain fully enforceable against all parties except Clarius.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 against your product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art relevant to any IPR strategy. Given VDPP’s apparent licensing posture, a fast, defensible FTO analysis is the most cost-effective first step before any product launch in this technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9699444B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar image capture and streaming patent cases in Delaware District Court
Browse related patent infringement actions involving image capture, streaming, and display technology litigated in the Delaware District Court, including other PAE enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the imaging and medical device IP landscape
A pre-answer, with-prejudice dismissal in Delaware rarely happens by accident — it typically reflects a deal reached in the shadow of litigation.
With-prejudice exit signals more than a simple walk-away
VDPP expressly agreed to dismiss with prejudice — going beyond the Rule 41 default. This is unusual and suggests either a licensing deal, a payment, or a covenant not to sue was exchanged privately. Companies in the image capture and medical imaging space should treat this as a signal that VDPP actively enforces its portfolio and resolves cases through licensing.
US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 remain enforceable against all other parties
The dismissal binds only Clarius. Both patents survive fully intact and VDPP retains all rights to assert them against other manufacturers, distributors, or users of image capture, streaming, and display systems. Competitors operating in mobile health imaging or portable ultrasound should assess their exposure independently.
VDPP v Clarius — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. VDPP, LLC cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against Clarius Mobile Health Corp. based on US9699444B2 or US9716874B2. Clarius is permanently shielded from further suit by VDPP on these patents. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or license was exchanged.
VDPP asserted US9699444B2 (application US15/217612) and US9716874B2 (application US15/212114), both covering image capture, streaming, modification, and displaying technology. The patents were filed under closely numbered applications, suggesting they share a common inventive lineage. Both remain valid and enforceable against third parties following the Clarius dismissal.
The public record does not state the reason. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss before the defendant answers without court approval. VDPP’s affirmative agreement to dismiss with prejudice — rather than accepting the default without-prejudice outcome — is consistent with a private licensing deal, covenant not to sue, or strategic decision to permanently resolve the dispute. No financial terms are disclosed.
No. The dismissal binds only Clarius Mobile Health Corp. US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 remain fully enforceable against all other parties. Companies in portable ultrasound, mobile medical imaging, or any product combining image capture with wireless streaming and display should independently assess their FTO position against these patents.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as Case No. 1:25-cv-00570, assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. The case was filed on 8 May 2025 and closed on 7 August 2025, lasting 91 days. Delaware is a common venue for patent infringement actions due to its established patent litigation docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.