Winsford v. Raspberry Med: Medical Dilator Cart Patent Case Dismissed in 70 Days
The Winsford Company, LLC filed suit against Raspberry Med, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of US11872353B2, a patent covering high-volume esophageal and Savary dilator storage and drying carts. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 70 days after filing, before any substantive court rulings.
Early voluntary exit in a medical equipment storage patent dispute
On 10 September 2024, The Winsford Company, LLC filed an infringement action against Raspberry Med, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-01932). The complaint alleged that Raspberry Med’s line of dilator storage and drying carts — including the DSC24SK, DSC24TK, DSC36TGK-DP, and multiple Savary dilator cart variants — infringed US11872353B2, a patent directed to high-volume esophageal and Savary dilator storage and drying cart technology.
On 19 November 2024, just 70 days after filing, Winsford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, terminating the action without prejudice and without a court order. Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by Raspberry Med at that stage, Winsford was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The without-prejudice designation means Winsford retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Raspberry Med at a future date.
The 70-day resolution timeline — before any substantive briefing, claim construction, or scheduling conference — suggests the case was resolved very early, possibly through pre-litigation settlement discussions, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic decision to reassess the merits. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason for dismissal, and no fee or cost award was recorded, which is consistent with a mutually agreed early resolution or a unilateral withdrawal. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket reinforces the likelihood that this was resolved outside formal litigation channels.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 70 days
70 days — resolved before any substantive court proceedings or scheduling orders
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural right, not a merits ruling. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, consistent with dismissal occurring before any responsive pleading was filed.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the refiling option remains open
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish Winsford’s claims. The patent survives, and the same infringement allegations could be reasserted in a future action. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record is explicit that this dismissal was without prejudice, so Raspberry Med cannot treat this as a final resolution of the IP dispute.
Refiling permittedRaspberry Med exits without a liability finding — for now
Raspberry Med faces no judgment, injunction, or damages award from this proceeding. However, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no guarantee of finality. Raspberry Med’s dilator cart product line — DSC24SK, DSC24TK, DSC36TGK-DP and related variants — remains potentially exposed to re-assertion of US11872353B2 unless a licensing or settlement agreement has been reached privately.
No judgment; risk persistsPatent remains active and enforceable against the market
US11872353B2 is still in force and was not challenged or invalidated in this proceeding. Competing manufacturers of esophageal and Savary dilator storage and drying carts should treat the patent as an active enforcement asset. The speed of dismissal — 70 days — may reflect a licensing outcome, but no public record confirms this, and the IP risk for the broader medical storage equipment sector remains unchanged.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | The Winsford Company, LLC | Company | Medical equipment IP holder — asserting US11872353B2 on dilator storage cart systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Raspberry Med, Inc. | Company | Raspberry Med, Inc. — manufacturer of medical dilator storage and drying cart productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Merl John Carson | Attorney | Counsel for The Winsford Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Andrew Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for The Winsford Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Winsford Company, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and designates the termination as without prejudice. This phrasing is legally precise: it confirms Winsford acted unilaterally before any responsive pleading, that no court order was required, and that the action was not resolved on the merits. For Raspberry Med, there is no res judicata protection. For Winsford, all claims under US11872353B2 remain legally available for future enforcement.
US11872353B2 — Esophageal and Savary Dilator Storage and Drying Cart Systems
US11872353B2 (filed as US17/025451) protects apparatus and systems directed at the storage and drying of esophageal and Savary dilators — medical instruments used in gastrointestinal procedures. The patent covers cart configurations designed for high-volume clinical environments, including variants with HEPA filtration for infection-control compliance. The asserted products span a broad SKU range including short, tall, and high-volume models with glass window door options, indicating the patent claims may extend across multiple physical configurations of the same core technology.
In a clinical market increasingly focused on reprocessing compliance and infection prevention, a patent covering HEPA-filtered dilator drying and storage infrastructure has meaningful competitive value. Raspberry Med’s accused product range suggests the technology is commercially significant enough to warrant enforcement. Competing manufacturers developing or distributing analogous storage and drying systems for flexible endoscopic instruments should assess their exposure to this patent carefully.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11872353B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing esophageal dilator storage carts, Savary dilator drying systems, or related endoscope accessory storage infrastructure in the U.S. market should treat US11872353B2 as a live enforcement risk. The scope of accused products in this case — spanning over a dozen distinct SKUs including HEPA-filtered and glass-window variants — suggests the claims may be broad enough to capture competing product architectures beyond Raspberry Med’s specific lineup.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map US11872353B2’s independent claims against their own product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface relevant prior art that could inform invalidity arguments. With this patent still fully in force and the patentee having demonstrated willingness to litigate, an FTO review is a practical first step before any new product launch or market expansion in the dilator cart space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11872353B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: medical device storage and drying equipment IP
Cases involving medical storage and drying device patents litigated in the Central District of California, including related infection-control and clinical equipment IP disputes.
What this case signals for the medical equipment storage IP landscape
A 70-day voluntary dismissal without prejudice in a niche medical device IP case carries distinct signals for competitors and IP teams monitoring dilator cart technology.
Early dismissals without prejudice are not the all-clear signal
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice leaves the patent fully enforceable and the claims legally alive. IP teams at competing dilator cart manufacturers should not interpret this outcome as a green light — Winsford retains all rights to refile against Raspberry Med or assert the same patent against others in the market.
Speed of resolution suggests negotiation occurred outside the docket
With no defendant counsel on record and dismissal at day 70, this pattern is consistent with pre-answer settlement or licensing discussions that were never made public. Monitoring patent assertion entities and patentees in medical equipment niches for off-docket activity is an increasingly important component of competitive IP intelligence.
The v Raspberry — key questions answered
The Winsford Company, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Raspberry Med, Inc. in the Central District of California on 10 September 2024, asserting US11872353B2 over dilator storage and drying cart products. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Winsford on 19 November 2024, 70 days after filing, before any responsive pleading was filed by Raspberry Med.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Winsford chose to end the case before any court order was required and before Raspberry Med answered the complaint. Critically, the without-prejudice designation means Winsford retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Raspberry Med in the future. No merits ruling was made on US11872353B2.
The accused products in this case included Raspberry Med’s DSC24SK, DSC24SK-DP, DSC24TK, DSC24TK-DP, DSC36TGK-DP, DSC36TK-DP, Glass Window Door Upgrade, High Volume Tall Esophageal Dilator Storage and Drying Cart, High Volume Tall Savary Dilator Drying Cart with HEPA Filter, Short Savary Dilator Drying Cart with HEPA Filter, Short Savary Dilator Storage Cart, Tall Savary Dilator Drying Cart with HEPA Filter, and Tall Savary Dilator Storage Cart.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice did not invalidate or challenge US11872353B2 in any way. The patent remains fully in force and enforceable. No inter partes review, invalidity finding, or court ruling on the patent’s merits was issued. Competitors in the dilator cart and medical storage equipment space should treat the patent as an active enforcement risk.
The 70-day resolution — before any scheduling order, claim construction, or defendant answer — is consistent with pre-litigation settlement discussions, a private licensing agreement, or a strategic withdrawal by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason. No cost award was recorded, and no defendant law firm appeared on the docket, which together suggest the matter may have been resolved outside formal litigation channels.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.