Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00097, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff, Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., is a medical device company focused on developing blood culture collection systems, such as its Steripath® platform, to improve diagnostic accuracy for sepsis testing by reducing blood culture contamination. The defendant, Kurin, Inc., is also a privately owned medical technology company dedicated to improving healthcare by providing innovative technologies like its Kurin® blood culture collection sets, which aim to reduce false positive blood cultures. Magnolia Medical accused Kurin's blood culture collection products, specifically the Kurin Lock®, of infringing its patents.

The primary patent asserted at trial was U.S. Patent No. 10,039,483 ("the '483 patent"), which covers a blood sequestration device designed to limit contamination during blood collection by keeping the earliest blood drawn separate from the later volume used for testing. U.S. Patent No. 9,855,001 was also initially asserted but was later stipulated to have no infringement based on the district court's claim construction. The case proceeded to trial solely on the '483 patent before Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly. A jury found that Kurin infringed the asserted claims, but the district court subsequently granted Kurin's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), concluding that Kurin did not infringe the '483 patent. This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 6, 2026.

The District of Delaware is a particularly significant venue for patent litigation, often chosen because a large percentage of U.S. corporations are incorporated there, and its judiciary is highly experienced in patent law. This case is notable within the medical device industry as it involves competing technologies aimed at a critical healthcare issue: improving the accuracy of blood cultures to prevent sepsis misdiagnosis and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. The proceedings highlight the rigorous judicial scrutiny applied to patent claims, including claim construction challenges and the potential for a jury's infringement verdict to be overturned by a post-trial JMOL, which was then upheld on appeal. Additionally, the '483 patent has faced challenges in parallel proceedings, with the Federal Circuit recently affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding claim 1 of the patent anticipated and therefore unpatentable in an ex parte reexamination.

The patent infringement litigation Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00097, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,039,483 (the '483 patent) and 9,855,001 (the '001 patent).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. filed its complaint against Kurin, Inc. on January 16, 2019, alleging infringement of the '483 and '001 patents.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• Markman Hearing: A claim construction hearing was held on April 15, 2020.
• Markman Order: The court issued a Memorandum Opinion on claim construction on May 20, 2020. In this decision, the district court construed the "diverter" term in claims 1 and 21 of the '001 patent as a means-plus-function limitation.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Stipulation of Non-Infringement (001 patent): Following the district court's claim construction of the '001 patent as a means-plus-function term, the parties stipulated to non-infringement of the '001 patent because the accused product (Kurin Lock) did not meet this limitation under the adopted construction.
• Bifurcated Trial: The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial structure, with direct infringement tried in the first phase, and damages and willfulness in a second phase, if necessary. The proper phase for invalidity defenses and counterclaims was a point of disagreement between the parties.

Discovery Milestones:

• General discovery proceeded, leading to a trial focused on the '483 patent.

Trial Events & Verdict:

• The case proceeded to trial solely on the '483 patent.
• A jury found that Kurin infringed the asserted claims (claims 1 and 24) of the '483 patent.

Post-Trial Motions & Judgment:

• Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL): The district court granted Kurin's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that Kurin did not infringe the '483 patent.
• Final Judgment: The district court entered final judgment in favor of Kurin based on the JMOL decision on May 14, 2024.

Appeal:

• Federal Circuit Appeal: Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2024-2001).
• Federal Circuit Decision: On March 6, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court's means-plus-function construction of the '001 patent and its grant of JMOL of no infringement as to the '483 patent.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• No specific parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,039,483 or 9,855,001 directly related to this case were found in the provided search results. While general discussions about Fintiv factors and their impact on PTAB institution decisions in the context of parallel district court litigation were noted, they were not tied to specific IPRs involving these patents or parties in this case.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., in the patent infringement case 1:19-cv-00097 in the Delaware District Court, including those who later represented the plaintiff-appellant in the Federal Circuit appeal.

District Court Counsel (as of May 20, 2020)

Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
Fish & Richardson is a premier global intellectual property law firm.

• Juanita R. Brooks
  • Role: Principal, likely lead counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, California.
  • Experience: Nationally recognized trial and appellate attorney specializing in complex intellectual property litigation, with a near-perfect winning record in high-stakes lawsuits. She has handled over 150 trials, focusing on patent cases in software, medical device, pharmaceutical, and electronics industries.
• Corrin N. Drakulich
  • Role: First-chair trial lawyer, likely lead counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Experience: First-chair trial lawyer for complex patent and intellectual property disputes, focusing on pharmaceuticals (including Hatch-Waxman cases), medical devices, and biotechnology. She serves as the firm's global head of litigation.
• Douglas E. McCann
  • Role: Principal, counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Leads and tries cases in critical patent matters for well-known companies, with an emphasis on life sciences and biotech litigation, and experience in medical devices, computer software, and hardware.
• Robert M. Oakes
  • Role: Principal, counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Litigates patent disputes in federal courts, handles post-grant reviews, and advises on patentability and licensing matters. He is experienced across a broad spectrum of technologies, particularly in the life sciences sector, including medical devices, biotechnology, and diagnostic inventions.
• Mathias W. Samuel
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for plaintiff. Specific detailed patent litigation experience for this attorney in relation to this case was not readily available beyond his firm and office location.

Appellate Counsel (as of March 6, 2026, for appeal to Federal Circuit)

• Mark Andrew Perry
  • Role: Co-Head of Appeals and Strategic Counseling practice, lead appellate counsel. He argued for plaintiff-appellant.
  • Firm & Office: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Veteran U.S. Supreme Court advocate and legal strategist with extensive experience in complex appellate matters, including high-stakes patent appeals. He is recognized by Chambers USA as "the best patent appeal lawyer in the country."
• Rocco Joseph Recce
  • Role: Associate, appellate counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience: Associate in Weil's IP, Technology & Science Litigation practice, litigating complex disputes before U.S. district courts, the PTAB, and the Federal Circuit, across various technical fields including pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and telecommunications.
• Micah Block
  • Role: Partner, appellate counsel (also played a key role in the District Court trial).
  • Firm & Office: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Redwood City, California.
  • Experience: Partner in Davis Polk's IP Litigation group, seasoned trial lawyer recognized for sophisticated representation in IP trials. He was co-lead in obtaining repeat trial victories for Magnolia Medical Technologies against Kurin.
• Ashok Ramani
  • Role: Head of IP Litigation practice, appellate counsel (also played a key role in the District Court trial).
  • Firm & Office: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Redwood City, California.
  • Experience: Leads Davis Polk's IP Litigation practice and is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He obtained a jury verdict for Magnolia Medical Technologies, confirming patent infringement and awarding a 17.7% royalty against its sole competitor.
• Rodger D. Smith, II
  • Role: Partner, local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience: Partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation Group, consistently recognized as a leading Delaware patent litigator with over thirty years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

Defendant Kurin, Inc. was represented by a team of attorneys from several firms.

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

• Jonathan E. Singer (Lead Counsel) - Partner in Finnegan's Washington, DC, office. He leads the firm's life sciences litigation practice and has extensive experience in patent litigation, including Hatch-Waxman Act proceedings. Notably, he was recognized as a "Winning Litigator" by The National Law Journal for overturning a $2.5 billion jury verdict against Gilead Sciences.
• Michael J. DeRita (Of Counsel) - Based in Finnegan's Washington, DC, office. His practice focuses on high-stakes antitrust and competition matters, including merger investigations and litigation across various industries such as healthcare.

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

• Kelly E. Farnan (Local Counsel) - Director and head of the Intellectual Property Group at Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington, Delaware. She is a highly regarded IP litigator with extensive experience in complex patent disputes in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, representing national and international technology and pharmaceutical companies. She has been recognized as Managing IP's Delaware Litigator of the Year multiple times.

Farnan LLP (Note: While Kelly E. Farnan is with Richards, Layton & Finger, there is a separate firm, Farnan LLP, also in Wilmington, DE, that specializes in complex litigation, including patent matters in Delaware's federal and state courts. Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., a former District Court Judge, founded this firm. It is possible there was some connection or prior representation not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries for Kurin, Inc. in this specific case, but direct representation of Kurin by Farnan LLP is not clearly indicated for this case from the current search results.)

Turner Boyd LLP

• Karen I. Boyd (Counsel) - A partner at Turner Boyd LLP, based in Redwood City, California.
• Louis Wai (Counsel) - An attorney at Turner Boyd LLP, based in Redwood City, California.
• Jacob Zweig (Counsel) - An attorney at Turner Boyd LLP, based in Redwood City, California.

X-Patents, APC

• Jonathan Hangartner (Counsel) - From X-Patents, APC, based in La Jolla, California.

A docket entry from May 20, 2020, confirms Kenneth T. Dorsney of Morris James LLP, Karen I. Boyd, Louis Wai, and Jacob Zweig of Turner Boyd LLP, and Jonathan Hangartner of X-Patents, APC as counsel for the defendant Kurin, Inc. The Federal Circuit opinion from March 6, 2026, lists Mark Andrew Perry of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP as arguing for the plaintiff-appellant, but does not explicitly name counsel for the defendant-appellee, Kurin, Inc. However, general searches for Kurin Inc.'s representation in this case consistently point to the Finnegan firm and local Delaware counsel.