Viken Detection v. Videray Technologies: X-Ray Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Viken Detection Corporation brought a patent infringement action against Videray Technologies, Inc. and individual defendant Paul E. Bradshaw in the District of Massachusetts, asserting US11940395B2 covering enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology. Judge Patti B. Saris granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, closing the case without prejudice after 479 days.
X-Ray Inspection Patent Claim Ends on Procedural Dismissal
Viken Detection Corporation filed suit on May 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:24-cv-11375), asserting infringement of US11940395B2 against Videray Technologies, Inc. and its associated individual defendant Paul E. Bradshaw. The patent in suit covers an enclosed x-ray chopper wheel, a component central to compact security and inspection imaging systems. Viken was represented by ArentFox Schiff LLP, while defendants retained Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Judge Patti B. Saris granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 12, 2025, and the case was formally closed on September 15, 2025. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning the court did not rule on the substantive merits of Viken’s infringement claims. Without prejudice status preserves Viken’s right to refile — subject to applicable statute of limitations — if the procedural deficiencies identified in the court’s Memorandum and Order can be remedied.
The 479-day duration is notable given that the case ended on a motion to dismiss rather than at summary judgment or trial, suggesting the dismissal may have turned on pleading sufficiency, standing, or a jurisdictional defect rather than contested claim construction. The public record does not disclose the specific grounds detailed in the court’s Memorandum and Order. Whether Viken chooses to refile — and whether it can cure the identified deficiency — remains an open commercial and legal question for the x-ray inspection technology sector.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 479 days
479 days — above the median for single-patent infringement actions resolved on a motion to dismiss
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Motion to dismiss granted — no merits ruling on US11940395B2
A dismissal without prejudice on a motion to dismiss means the court found a threshold defect — such as insufficient pleading, lack of standing, or a jurisdictional issue — before reaching the substance of the infringement claims. Judge Saris’s Memorandum and Order dated September 12, 2025 was the operative instrument. No finding was made on whether Videray infringed US11940395B2 or whether the patent is valid.
Procedural — no merits adjudicationViken retains the right to refile, but faces renewed pleading risk
Because dismissal was without prejudice, US11940395B2 remains enforceable and Viken is not barred from bringing a fresh action against Videray or Bradshaw. However, refiling requires addressing whatever deficiency the court identified. If the issue was pleading adequacy under Iqbal/Twombly, Viken must provide a more detailed factual basis for its infringement theory. Litigation costs already incurred are largely unrecoverable.
Refile option preservedVideray wins this round — but remains exposed to future suit
Videray Technologies and Paul E. Bradshaw secured dismissal without prejudice, meaning they obtained a clean exit from this action without conceding any liability. Critically, this outcome does not preclude a future infringement action on the same patent if Viken refiles with a corrected complaint. Defendants’ freedom to operate with respect to US11940395B2 is commercially uncertain until either a merits ruling or a covenant not to sue is obtained.
Exposure to refiling remainsX-ray inspection sector faces unresolved IP uncertainty
Because no court has ruled on the validity or scope of US11940395B2, competitors in the compact x-ray and security inspection imaging space cannot rely on this case as precedent clearing the patent. The dismissal without prejudice leaves the patent’s enforceability intact and its claim scope uninterpreted by the court. Companies developing or deploying enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology should treat FTO risk as live until a merits resolution is reached.
FTO risk remains unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Viken Detection Corporation | Company | Security inspection technology company — holder of US11940395B2 (enclosed x-ray chopper wheel)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Videray Technologies, Inc. | Company | Videray Technologies, Inc. — developer of compact x-ray imaging systems; co-defendant Paul E. BradshawSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Paul E. Bradshaw | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher S. Schultz | Attorney | Counsel for Viken Detection CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura L. Carroll | Attorney | Counsel for Viken Detection CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lauren C. Schaefer | Attorney | Counsel for Viken Detection CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | ArentFox Schiff LLP | Law Firm | Representing Viken Detection CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Godkin | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Gill | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James E. Kruzer | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jesse A. Salen | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen S. Korniczky | Attorney | Counsel for Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Videray Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Patti B. Saris | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the outcome of Judge Saris’s September 12, 2025 Memorandum and Order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, and directs that the action ‘be and hereby is dismissed’ without specifying with prejudice. The Basis of Termination confirms dismissal without prejudice. This phrasing indicates a threshold defect — likely pleading, standing, or jurisdictional — rather than a merits resolution. Neither validity nor infringement of US11940395B2 was adjudicated, leaving both parties’ substantive positions legally unchanged.
US11940395B2 — Enclosed X-Ray Chopper Wheel Technology
US11940395B2 (filed under application number US17/631949) protects an enclosed x-ray chopper wheel — a mechanical and optical component used in compact x-ray imaging systems to modulate x-ray beam exposure. Chopper wheel technology is foundational to high-resolution, low-dose scanning architectures used in security screening, border inspection, and non-destructive testing. The patent’s claims have not been construed by any court, meaning the full scope of protection remains to be determined in any future enforcement action.
For the security inspection imaging market, US11940395B2 represents a potentially significant IP position if its claims cover the core beam-modulation architecture of compact x-ray devices. Viken Detection’s decision to assert this patent against a direct competitor — Videray Technologies — suggests it views the patent as strategically material to its commercial position. Companies designing next-generation x-ray screening hardware should assess whether their chopper wheel implementations could be read on the patent’s claims, particularly given the absence of any limiting claim construction from this case.
Should your team run an FTO against US11940395B2?
Any organisation developing, manufacturing, or commercialising enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology — including compact security scanners, baggage inspection systems, or non-destructive testing devices — should assess clearance risk against US11940395B2. Because no court has construed its claims or invalidated the patent, the scope of protection is at its broadest from an FTO perspective. The dismissal without prejudice in this case provides no safe harbour for third-party products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claims of US11940395B2 against product specifications, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and locate related family members or continuation applications that could extend the patent’s reach. For teams advising on x-ray inspection product launches, Eureka’s claim charting and landscape analysis tools can flag design-around opportunities before products reach market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11940395B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar X-Ray Inspection Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving x-ray inspection, security screening, and beam-modulation technology litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the x-ray inspection IP landscape
A dismissal without prejudice on a motion to dismiss leaves US11940395B2 fully in play — and its scope untested by any court.
Without prejudice dismissals leave patent enforceability intact
Competitors and investors should not read this dismissal as a clearance event. US11940395B2 was never adjudicated on the merits, meaning it could support a refiled action. Any product team working with enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology should continue to monitor Viken’s enforcement posture and any future filings.
Individual defendant exposure is a structuring signal worth noting
The naming of Paul E. Bradshaw as an individual co-defendant alongside Videray Technologies is consistent with strategies targeting founders or key technical personnel for indirect infringement or inducement. This structuring pattern is increasingly common in security technology patent assertions and warrants attention in FTO planning.
Viken v Videray — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on September 15, 2025, following Judge Patti B. Saris’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss. No merits ruling was issued on the infringement or validity of US11940395B2. Viken Detection retains the right to refile subject to applicable limitations periods.
Dismissal without prejudice means the court did not reach the substance of the infringement claims and did not invalidate or limit the patent. US11940395B2 remains in force and enforceable. Viken Detection could refile a corrected complaint against Videray or other parties, provided any pleading or jurisdictional defect identified by the court is cured.
Viken Detection asserted US11940395B2 (application number US17/631949), which covers an enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology used in compact security and inspection imaging systems. The patent’s claims were not construed or adjudicated in this action.
The public record indicates the case was terminated on defendants’ motion to dismiss after 479 days. The specific grounds are set out in Judge Saris’s Memorandum and Order dated September 12, 2025, which is not reproduced in the available case data. This pattern is consistent with pleading deficiency, standing issues, or a jurisdictional defect, though the precise basis is not confirmed from available public records.
Because no court has construed or invalidated the claims of US11940395B2, companies developing enclosed x-ray chopper wheel technology face unresolved freedom-to-operate risk. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not clear third-party products. An FTO analysis mapping product specifications against the patent’s claims — and an assessment of available prior art — is advisable before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.