W.H.P.M. v. Healgen Scientific: Oral Fluid Drug Test Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
W.H.P.M., Inc. sued Healgen Scientific over US7927562B2, a patent covering oral fluid drug screening technology, targeting Healgen’s Saliva Screen and One Step Oral Fluid Drug Test products. The parties reached a full settlement after 2,044 days of litigation, with all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice and each side bearing its own costs.
A five-year oral fluid drug test patent battle ends in settlement
W.H.P.M., Inc. filed this patent infringement action against Healgen Scientific LLC on 5 July 2018 in the Southern District of Texas. The complaint targeted Healgen’s Saliva Screen Test and One Step Oral Fluid Drug Test products, asserting infringement of US7927562B2 — a patent covering oral fluid-based drug screening device technology. Healgen responded with counterclaims, creating a bilateral dispute that would span more than five years before resolution.
The case concluded on 8 February 2024 when both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reflecting a negotiated settlement. The court entered an order dismissing all claims and all counterclaims with prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, suggesting neither side extracted a clear financial concession from the other on litigation expenses.
The 2,044-day duration is notably long for a case that ultimately resolved by settlement rather than trial, suggesting complex claim construction, potential IPR proceedings, or protracted licensing negotiations may have driven the timeline. The with-prejudice dismissal on both sides is consistent with a structured settlement — likely including licence or cross-licence terms — though the financial terms remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 2044 days
2,044 days — over 5.5 years, well above median for district court patent infringement cases
Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint voluntary dismissal with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed by both parties jointly, typically as part of a settlement. Unlike a unilateral withdrawal, it requires defendant consent. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — WHPM cannot refile the same patent claims against Healgen in any federal court. This is the strongest form of settlement-linked dismissal available under the Federal Rules.
Bars refiling by plaintiffHealgen’s counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Healgen asserted counterclaims — likely invalidity or non-infringement defences — and these too were dismissed with prejudice under the joint stipulation. This is a meaningful concession: Healgen cannot use this litigation to re-litigate invalidity of US7927562B2 through the same counterclaim pathway. A mutual with-prejudice dismissal on both sides is consistent with a comprehensive settlement resolving all outstanding disputes between the parties.
Mutual with-prejudice barEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting awarded
The order specifies that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. In US patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case’ — the absence of any fee award here suggests neither party pursued or obtained such a finding. This cost allocation is standard in negotiated settlements and does not signal who held the stronger litigation position.
No § 285 awardFive-year duration suggests substantive licensing negotiation
Cases resolved by joint stipulation after 2,044 days typically reflect extended licensing or cross-licensing negotiations rather than a quick capitulation. The length suggests the parties explored claim construction, potentially pursued inter partes review, and negotiated settlement economics in parallel with litigation. The confidential settlement terms — not visible in the public record — likely define ongoing rights to the oral fluid drug testing technology covered by US7927562B2.
Likely structured licenceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | W.h.p.m | Company | Oral fluid drug testing IP holder — asserting US7927562B2 in saliva screen technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Healgen Scientific, LLC | Company | Healgen Scientific LLC — developer and seller of rapid oral fluid drug screening testsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gordon T. Arnold | Attorney | Counsel for W.h.p.mSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark W. Romney | Attorney | Counsel for W.h.p.mSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Francis Gianni | Attorney | Counsel for W.h.p.mSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Roger L. Buffington | Attorney | Counsel for W.h.p.mSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wanchan Ohyan | Attorney | Counsel for W.h.p.mSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Valencia | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Joseph Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ruixue Ran | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sheng Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Theodore Victor Lapus | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas E. Garten | Attorney | Counsel for Healgen Scientific, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The joint stipulation and court order reflect a fully negotiated exit from litigation: both parties consented, both sets of claims are permanently barred, and no financial penalty was imposed on either side. The with-prejudice designation on WHPM’s infringement claims is particularly significant — it forecloses any future action on the same accused products under the same patent. The absence of a fee award and the mutual dismissal of counterclaims strongly suggests the settlement included substantive commercial terms, most likely a licence agreement, whose details remain confidential.
US7927562B2 — oral fluid drug screening device technology
US7927562B2 covers technology in the oral fluid rapid drug testing space, protecting aspects of saliva-based specimen collection and analyte detection used in point-of-care drug screening devices. The application number US11/956176 places its filing in the mid-2000s patent activity surge in lateral flow and rapid diagnostic technologies. The patent issued as B2 — indicating it was granted with an amended claim set — and covers technology directly relevant to the growing workplace and clinical drug screening market.
Oral fluid drug testing is a commercially significant and growing segment of the diagnostics industry, favoured for its non-invasive collection method and rapid turnaround. US7927562B2’s longevity as a litigation asset — surviving more than five years without invalidation — suggests its claims are meaningfully scoped. Competitors producing saliva screen or oral swab drug test products should treat this patent as an active risk and monitor both its claim scope and WHPM’s licensing activity in the sector.
Should your team run an FTO against US7927562B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing oral fluid drug test devices — particularly saliva screen or one-step oral fluid test formats — should assess freedom to operate against US7927562B2. This patent was actively litigated for over five years and was not invalidated in the process. The risk is not hypothetical: Healgen was forced into a prolonged and costly dispute before reaching settlement. Product teams launching in the workplace drug screening or clinical diagnostics space face meaningful exposure without a prior FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US7927562B2, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related oral fluid diagnostic patents that may create adjacent risk. Setting up claim monitoring alerts on US7927562B2 and its family members will also give your team early warning if WHPM pursues further licensing or enforcement activity against competitors in this technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7927562B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar oral fluid drug test patent infringement cases in US federal courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the oral fluid drug testing IP landscape
A five-year dispute over saliva-based drug screening technology has closed — but the patent remains in force and the sector remains contested.
US7927562B2 survived five years of litigation — treat it as a live risk
Healgen’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges — were dismissed with prejudice without any ruling that the patent is invalid. Companies commercialising oral fluid drug screening devices should conduct FTO analysis against US7927562B2 before launch, as the patent’s claims have not been judicially narrowed or invalidated through this litigation.
Mutual with-prejudice settlement signals a structured commercial resolution
The bilateral with-prejudice bar — covering both infringement claims and counterclaims — is consistent with a licence grant from WHPM to Healgen. If Healgen is now operating under licence, it may have a structural cost advantage over unlicensed competitors in the oral fluid drug test market. Competitors should assess whether WHPM is actively licensing or enforcing this IP more broadly.
W.h.p.m v Healgen — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 8 February 2024, following a full settlement between the parties. All of WHPM’s infringement claims and all of Healgen’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
W.H.P.M. asserted US7927562B2 (application number US11/956176) — a patent covering oral fluid drug screening device technology. The accused products were Healgen’s Saliva Screen Test and Healgen’s One Step Oral Fluid Drug Test.
Dismissed with prejudice means the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. WHPM cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Healgen for the same products and patent. Similarly, Healgen’s counterclaims — likely invalidity or non-infringement — were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning Healgen cannot pursue those specific counterclaims again in a new action.
Based on the public record, US7927562B2 was not judicially invalidated in this litigation. Healgen’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity challenges — were dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement, not as a result of a court ruling on validity. Patent practitioners and product teams should verify current legal status through USPTO records and monitor the patent’s file history for any post-grant proceedings.
The case spanned 2,044 days — over 5.5 years — from filing in July 2018 to closure in February 2024. The public record does not detail the specific causes of delay, but cases of this duration typically involve extended claim construction (Markman) proceedings, fact and expert discovery, potential inter partes review petitions at the USPTO, and parallel settlement negotiations. The eventual mutual with-prejudice dismissal suggests a structured commercial resolution was reached after lengthy negotiation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.