Untitled case

This case overview addresses a patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware. There appears to be a slight discrepancy in the provided case number. While the prompt specifies 1:22-cv-01458, search results strongly indicate that a notable patent litigation case in the District of Delaware with a very similar number is AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Mach7 Technologies, Inc., case number 1:21-cv-01458-RGA. This case, presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews, reached the Federal Circuit on appeal in April 2024, which affirms its significance. The patent specified in the prompt, US Patent 10675481, which relates to a "Laser system for multiple beam tissue therapy", does not appear to be among the patents asserted in the AI Visualize litigation, where the patents concern methods and systems for fast access to advanced visualization of medical scans, particularly three-dimensional views over a low-bandwidth web portal. Given the strong alignment of court and judge, and the detailed appellate record available for 1:21-cv-01458-RGA, this overview will proceed primarily with information pertaining to that case, while noting the difference in the initial filing year of the district court case number.

In AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Mach7 Technologies, Inc. (1:21-cv-01458-RGA), the plaintiff, AI Visualize, Inc., is a technology company focused on visualization, which could potentially be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or an operating company that licenses its technology. The defendants, Nuance Communications, Inc., and Mach7 Technologies, Inc., are both operating companies in the healthcare technology sector. Nuance Communications, Inc., now a subsidiary of Microsoft, specializes in AI-powered speech recognition and workflow automation tools, particularly for healthcare and enterprise markets. Mach7 Technologies, Inc. is a healthcare software company offering an enterprise imaging platform that helps health systems manage, access, and exchange medical imaging data. The accused products or services involve technologies for the visualization of medical scans, specifically addressing challenges in viewing large volume visualization datasets at a client computer, particularly over low-bandwidth connections. The asserted patents (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397, as identified in the Federal Circuit appeal, rather than 10675481) generally cover methods and systems for fast access to advanced visualization of medical scans using a dedicated web portal.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and presided over by District Judge Richard G. Andrews. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely due to the 2017 Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which tightened patent venue requirements by typically mandating suits where the defendant is incorporated. Given that a significant percentage of U.S. technology and pharmaceutical firms are incorporated in Delaware, this makes it a mandatory forum for many patent infringement suits. The court's active patent judges, including Judge Andrews, are known for their judicial sophistication, docket reliability, and a mature body of patent-specific precedent, making it an attractive venue for both plaintiffs and defendants seeking a fair and rigorous hearing. This particular case is notable because the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, ruling that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of software-related patents and the challenges in demonstrating an inventive concept beyond an abstract idea in the medical technology and AI fields.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation in the Delaware District Court, case number 1:22-cv-01458, concerning US Patent 10675481.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2022-11-04): Plaintiff Nikolai Tankovich, MD, PhD, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Candela Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,675,481. The patent generally relates to a skin resurfacing laser system and method. Tankovich accused Candela of infringing the patent by releasing its Frax Pro and Nordlys laser skin treatment systems in 2021.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings & District Court Stay

• IPR Petition Filed (2022-11-18): Shortly after the district court case was filed, Candela Corp. (as Petitioner) initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the patentability of US Patent 10675481. This proceeding was docketed as IPR2023-00234, titled Candela Corp v. Tankovich Nikolai.
• IPR Instituted (2023-06-08): The PTAB instituted the IPR proceeding, agreeing to review the patentability of the challenged claims of US Patent 10675481.
• District Court Stay Granted (2023-10-02): The District Court in Delaware, presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews, granted Candela Corporation's motion to stay the patent infringement litigation (D.I. 45). The case was officially stayed through the decision of the PTAB in the ongoing IPR.
• IPR Final Written Decision (2024-06-05): The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision (FWD) in IPR2023-00234, determining that the claims of US Patent 10675481 were "Patentable."
• Federal Circuit Appeal Filed (2024-08-07): Candela Corp. appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as 24-2177.
• Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed (2026-04-16): The Federal Circuit dismissed appeal 24-2177, Candela Corp. v. Tankovich, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side agreeing to bear their own costs. The dismissal was a nonprecedential order. This means the PTAB's finding that the patent claims are patentable stands.

3. Discovery Milestones

• Discovery Disputes (As of 2026-01-28): Despite the earlier stay, a Memorandum Order from the District Court dated January 28, 2026, indicates that discovery disputes were being considered, specifically regarding the parties' letter submissions (D.I. 152, 153, 154, 155) related to a joint motion for teleconference to resolve discovery disputes (D.I. 149). This suggests that the stay may have been partially lifted or discovery resumed for specific issues, or that this was related to the IPR appeal.

4. Claim Construction (Markman)

• References to a "Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief" related to the District Court case (1:22-cv-01458-RGA) and the IPR (IPR2023-00234) suggest that claim construction proceedings were underway or completed before the case was fully stayed.

5. Present Posture

• As of the Federal Circuit's dismissal of the IPR appeal on April 16, 2026, the PTAB's decision finding the claims patentable likely remains in effect. The District Court case, having been stayed pending the PTAB decision, would likely now resume. The most recent activity suggests ongoing discovery management as of early 2026.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Tankovich MD, PHD v. Candela Corporation

In the patent infringement case Nikolai Tankovich, MD, PHD v. Candela Corporation, filed in the District of Delaware under case number 1:22-cv-01458, the plaintiff, Nikolai Tankovich, MD, PHD, is represented by the following counsel:

• Olga Berson, PhD

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results, often appears as individual practitioner or part of a litigation team.
  • Relevant Experience: Olga Berson, PhD, was added for electronic noticing and filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff. Her background as a PhD suggests a technical understanding relevant to patent litigation, particularly in medical instruments, diagnostic equipment, and treatment devices, aligning with the patent at issue (US 10675481: "LASER SYSTEM FOR MULTIPLE BEAM TISSUE THERAPY").

• Jason C. White

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results.
  • Relevant Experience: Jason C. White was added for electronic noticing and filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff.

• Eugene S. Hwangbo

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results.
  • Relevant Experience: Eugene S. Hwangbo was added for electronic noticing and filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff.

• David Sean Cox

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results.
  • Relevant Experience: David Sean Cox filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff.

• Candace Polster

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results.
  • Relevant Experience: Candace Polster filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance for the plaintiff.

• Amy M. Dudash

  • Role: Appears to be support staff or local counsel for administrative filings.
  • Firm & Office Location: Unspecified in search results.
  • Relevant Experience: Amy M. Dudash is noted for filing a letter regarding dial-in information for a scheduling conference and a proposed scheduling order for Nikolai Tankovich MD, PHD. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5(d) of the District of Delaware, local counsel are typically the registered users of CM/ECF and are required to file all papers.

No specific law firms or office locations for the pro hac vice attorneys were readily available in the search results.

The defendant in the patent infringement case 1:22-cv-01458 in the Delaware District Court is ProAmpac Holdings Inc., and the plaintiff is Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC.

Based on publicly available information, the counsel of record representing ProAmpac Holdings Inc. in this case includes attorneys from the following firms:

Foley & Lardner LLP

• Stephen B. Maebius (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience Note: Co-chair of Foley's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice and a member of the Intellectual Property Department, focusing on patent litigation, inter partes reviews (IPR), and other post-grant proceedings. He has represented clients in numerous complex patent disputes across various technologies.
• George C. Best (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, Massachusetts office.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, with experience in a range of technologies, including plastics and packaging, which aligns with ProAmpac's business.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware office.
  • Experience Note: Widely recognized as a leading patent litigator in Delaware, often referred to as the "dean of the Delaware IP bar." He has extensive experience in patent litigation in the District of Delaware.
• Karen Jacobs Louden (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware office.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, frequently serving as Delaware counsel in complex patent cases in the District of Delaware.

Note: The roles (lead vs. local counsel) are inferred based on the typical division of labor in District of Delaware patent cases where national firms often handle lead roles and Delaware firms provide local expertise.