Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the district court litigation, accused products, and IPR outcomes.

Case Overview & Background — Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 24-1951 (Fed. Cir.)

The parties are two operating companies, not an NPE. The dispute pits Novarad Corporation, a Utah-based medical-imaging and augmented-reality ("AR") surgical-navigation company (CEO Dr. Wendell Gibby), against Medivis, Inc., a New York City–based AR/AI surgical-visualization startup founded in 2016 by neurosurgeon Dr. Osamah Choudhry and radiologist Dr. Christopher Morley. Novarad commercializes VisAR, an FDA-cleared AR surgical-navigation platform (it says it holds ~30 U.S. and international AR patents and has installations at 1,000+ sites); Medivis commercializes SurgicalAR, a software platform that renders patient CT/MRI data holographically on Microsoft HoloLens 2 headsets, and holds its own AR patent family (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,265,138; 11,138,806; 11,429,247). This is classic operating-company-versus-operating-company litigation in a hot, FDA-regulated space — the "NPE/PAE" frame does not apply.

Accused product and patents. Novarad's district-court complaint targets Medivis's SurgicalAR platform (and, on a contributory/induced-infringement theory, its hospital customers and users). The complaint asserts at least two Novarad patents: (1) U.S. Pat. No. 10,945,807 ("Augmented Reality Viewing and Tagging for Medical Procedures"), which claims a method of augmenting medical imaging through an AR headset — receiving a live camera image of patient anatomy, retrieving a stored medical image spanning multiple anatomical layers, aligning it to the live view, and projecting the image plus an "augmentation tag" identifying an anatomical structure as a single overlaid graphical view; and (2) U.S. Pat. No. 11,004,271 ("Augmenting Real-time Views of a Patient with Three-Dimensional Data"), which claims registering 3D patient data to the live patient using morphometric measurements and displaying inner anatomical layers overlaid on real-time views through an AR headset, including a "projected inner layer… confined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape." Novarad has publicly stated it is asserting "multiple additional" patents and may expand the suit to additional parties, expressly flagging downstream liability exposure for hospital systems such as the University of Pittsburgh and MD Anderson (Novarad press release, Dec. 15, 2025).

Procedural posture and venue. The underlying infringement action is Novarad Corp. v. Medivis, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01447 (D. Del.), filed October 13, 2021 and originally assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark; Medivis responded with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on December 3, 2021 (D.I. 11–12). The Delaware forum matters because D. Del. is a magnet patent venue with deep, predictable bench experience (Judge Stark among the most experienced patent jurists of his era) and because Medivis's Delaware incorporation/residence makes venue convenient — an inference, since the docket's Rule 7.1 disclosure lists no parents or affiliates but does not state the state of incorporation. In parallel, Medivis petitioned for IPR of the '807 patent (IPR2023-00045, filed Oct. 12, 2022; instituted Apr. 24, 2023), and the PTAB's Final Written Decision (terminated Apr. 12, 2024) upheld claims 1–7, denying rehearing. Medivis appealed, producing the instant Fed. Cir. No. 24-1951, in which the court affirmed via a Rule 36 per curiam judgment on Dec. 10, 2025 (Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto) — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1951.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.12-10-2025_2617263.pdf. A companion appeal on the '271 patent, No. 24-1794, took the opposite tack: on March 3, 2026 the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on anticipation but reversed on obviousness, holding the Board applied too rigid a "motivation to combine" standard in rejecting a Doo+Amira combination under KSR — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/03-03-2026-24-1794-medivis-inc-v-novarad-corp-opinion-24-1794-opinion-3-3-2026_2655310/.

Why it's notable. The case is a leading example of a two-front (district court + PTAB) AR-medical-device war between pioneer and challenger, and of how the same panel/practice can split on obviousness doctrine: the '807 appeal produced a silent Rule 36 affirmance (validity intact), while the '271 appeal generated a precedential-adjacent nonprecedential opinion reviving the obviousness challenge on KSR grounds. It also carries real downstream market stakes — Medivis's SurgicalAR relies on commodity AR hardware (Microsoft HoloLens 2) but proprietary software, and Novarad's theory reaches the hospitals that use it, making the litigation a template for induced-infringement pressure on health systems. Both companies are otherwise well-funded, non-practicing-entity-adjacent adversaries, so the outcome affects competitive freedom-to-operate across AR-assisted surgical navigation.

Corrections to the earlier draft sections (flagged per instructions). Two prior sections said counsel could not be identified; that is now resolved from the Rule 36 judgment: Medivis (appellant) — Desmarais LLP (Adam Steinmetz argued; Betty H. Chen, Taeg Sang Cho, John M. Desmarais), and Novarad (appellee) — Thorpe North & Western, LLP (Joseph Harmer argued; Jed H. Hansen). In the district court/IPR, Medivis was represented by McCarter & English (Kia Freeman; Erik P. Belt) with Delaware counsel, and Novarad by Thorpe North & Western (Jed Hansen, Peter de Jonge, Brett Davis, Mark Bettilyon) with Delaware counsel Francis DiGiovanni. Also note the earlier IPR section's framing that the PTAB "dismissed" the petition is imprecise — the Board instituted and then upheld the challenged claims after a full trial, and the appeal affirmed that. One caveat: the publicly accessible district-court docket snapshot (Justia) is stale (last retrieved Dec. 2021), so the current status of No. 1:21-cv-01447 — including whether it was stayed pending the IPRs, reassigned after Judge Stark's 2022 elevation to the Federal Circuit, or resolved — is not verified here and would require PACER. A Law360/ALM item headlined "PTAB partially invalidates augmented reality surgery patent" appears to involve a separate Novarad patent/IPR and could not be tied to the '807 or '271 proceedings from available sources.

This case, identified as Federal Circuit Appeal No. 24-1951, primarily involves a challenge to the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,807 through an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which was subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

I. Parallel District Court Litigation (Infringement)

• Filing: Novarad Corp. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Medivis, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:21-cv-01447. The complaint was filed on October 13, 2021.
• Patents Asserted: While specific details for patent 10,945,807 within this district court case are not publicly detailed in the provided information, the case is identified as a related matter to the IPRs challenging Novarad's patents. Novarad has alleged Medivis is infringing multiple Novarad patents, and this federal litigation is described as ongoing, with the potential to expand to include additional parties.
• Outcome/Status: The outcome of this district court infringement case concerning patent 10,945,807 is not specified in the public records available, beyond its existence as a related, ongoing matter.

II. PTAB Inter Partes Review (Patentability Challenge)

• IPR Petition Filing (Medivis): Medivis, Inc. (Petitioner) filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Novarad Corp. (Patent Owner) challenging claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,945,807 (the '807 patent). This proceeding was assigned IPR2023-00045.
• IPR Institution Decision: On April 24, 2023, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1-7 of the '807 patent. The Board determined that Medivis had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim's unpatentability.
• PTAB Final Written Decision: Following the institution, the PTAB ultimately rendered a decision in favor of Novarad, dismissing Medivis's petition to invalidate the '807 patent and upholding its validity. Medivis did not prevail on its challenges to the '807 patent at the PTAB.

III. Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 24-1951)

• Appeal Filing: Medivis, Inc. appealed the PTAB's final written decision concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,945,807 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was filed on June 17, 2024, and assigned case number 24-1951.
• Parties: Medivis, Inc. was the Appellant, and Novarad Corp. was the Appellee.
• Oral Argument: The appeal involved oral argument before the Federal Circuit panel.
• Final Disposition: On December 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous per curiam order, affirming the PTAB's decision that upheld Novarad's U.S. Patent No. 10,945,807. The court's decision was a Rule 36 judgment, which indicates that the court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's ruling. The appeal was terminated on the merits, with the outcome also recorded as "Appeal Dismissed" as is common for Rule 36 affirmances. This affirmance reinforces the validity of Novarad's '807 patent.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case identified as CAFC case number 24-1951, involving patent 10945807, with the available public search tools.

While a search for "CAFC 24-1951" yielded a listing for "NOVARAD CORP." associated with this docket number and a date of December 10, 2025, from Justia's "2025 Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Case Law", this entry does not specify the context as a patent infringement case or clearly identify NOVARAD CORP. as the plaintiff/appellant. Furthermore, this entry is presented alongside other unrelated cases, making it difficult to definitively link it to the specific patent at issue (10945807) and ascertain the parties involved. Direct access to the CAFC docket via PACER would be necessary to confirm the exact case caption, parties, and the appearances of counsel.

Without direct access to the official docket for CAFC case 24-1951, and given that public search results do not explicitly provide the plaintiff(s) and their counsel for a patent infringement case related to patent 10945807, the requested information cannot be provided at this time. Filings may be sealed, or the case may have a caption not immediately obvious through general search queries.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in CAFC case 24-1951 involving patent 10945807 using publicly available web search resources. My searches, including attempts to find the docket and parties associated with this specific case number and patent, did not yield direct results on PACER or legal news sites like Law360 or Reuters Legal.

It is possible that the case is new, filings are sealed, or the specific patent information is not prominently featured in initial public summaries. Without direct access to the PACER docket for CAFC Case 24-1951, I cannot definitively determine the parties involved (appellant and appellee, which would correspond to the original district court plaintiff/defendant) or their respective counsel.