Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 4:24-cv-03200, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria. The plaintiff is the University of British Columbia (UBC), a prominent Canadian research university that actively manages and licenses its intellectual property. The defendants are Caption Health, Inc., an AI healthcare leader specializing in clinical applications for early disease detection using AI-assisted ultrasound scans, and its parent company, GE Healthcare Technologies Inc., a global medical technology company known for its broad portfolio of medical imaging, patient care, and pharmaceutical diagnostics solutions.

The lawsuit asserts infringement of two U.S. Patents: US 11129591 and US 10751029 B2. U.S. Patent 11129591, titled "Echocardiographic image analysis," describes a computer-implemented method and system for training neural networks to analyze echocardiographic images for quality assessment, aiming to facilitate the capture of high-quality images for clinical measurements and diagnoses. U.S. Patent 10751029 B2, titled "Ultrasonic image analysis," covers a computer-implemented method and system that uses neural networks to extract features from ultrasound images to automatically determine image properties, such as view categories, and provide quality assessment values [cite: 6, IPR2025-01422 Ex. 1009]. The accused products and technologies include Caption Health's "Caption AI" software and GE HealthCare's ultrasound systems, specifically the Venue and Vscan ultrasound systems with Caption Guidance software, and the Voluson Expert, Signature, and SWIFT series ultrasound systems.

This case is notable for several reasons. It involves a university enforcing its patents against a major player in the medical technology and artificial intelligence space, highlighting the increasing importance of AI in healthcare diagnostics. The Northern District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, particularly for technology and life sciences disputes, known for its experienced judiciary and local patent rules that can favor defendants, including a willingness to entertain early dispositive motions like Alice challenges and motions to stay proceedings pending inter partes review (IPR). Indeed, the defendants have already initiated IPR proceedings against both asserted patents, with IPR2025-01422 instituted against US 10751029 B2 on February 3, 2026, and IPR2025-01066 also filed against US 11129591, underscoring a common defense strategy in such complex patent disputes. The outcome of this litigation could have implications for how AI-powered medical imaging technologies are developed, protected, and brought to market.

The patent infringement litigation, University of British Columbia v. Caption Health, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-03200, was filed on May 28, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case involves U.S. Patent 11129591.

As of May 18, 2026, the case is active, and key legal developments primarily involve initial pleadings and related proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: The University of British Columbia filed the initial complaint on May 28, 2024, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent 11129591 against Caption Health, Inc. and GE Healthcare Technologies Inc.
• Information regarding the filing of an answer or counterclaims by the defendants is not yet publicly available in the provided search results.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• There is no information available in the provided search results regarding substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment in the district court case. However, the existence of PTAB proceedings suggests potential motions to stay the district court litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, as indicated by the current filing date and the ongoing nature of parallel PTAB proceedings.

Discovery Milestones:

• No significant discovery milestones have been identified in the available information, likely due to the relatively early stage of the litigation.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active, and there is no information about a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment. No appeals have been filed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01066: On May 28, 2025, Caption Health Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01066, challenging U.S. Patent 11129591, owned by the University of British Columbia. The PTAB decided not to institute a review on the merits on December 19, 2025, and the case was terminated on the same date. This means the PTAB did not find sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR challenge.
• IPR2025-01422: CaptION Health Inc. filed another IPR petition, IPR2025-01422, against the University of British Columbia, related to U.S. Patent 11129591 (and potentially other patents, such as '029) on August 15, 2025. The PTAB issued an institution decision on February 3, 2026, meaning a trial has been instituted for this IPR. This IPR proceeding is currently active. The outcome of this instituted IPR could significantly impact the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay of the district court case, claim amendments, or influencing settlement discussions.

Present Posture:
The district court litigation is in its early stages, with the primary activity since filing focused on the PTAB proceedings related to the asserted patent. One IPR petition challenging the '591 patent was denied institution, while another IPR trial on the same patent has been instituted and is currently ongoing at the PTAB.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, University of British Columbia, in case 4:24-cv-03200:

• Ramsey M. Al-Salam

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, based on being listed first in many filings and firm profile)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA (Perkins Coie firm profile often lists him in Seattle)
  • Relevant Experience: Ramsey Al-Salam is a partner at Perkins Coie, co-chair of the firm's Patent Litigation practice, and focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes in various technology areas, including software, electronics, and medical devices. He has extensive experience in district court litigation, appellate proceedings, and PTAB post-grant review proceedings.

• Dorianne Alecia Salmon

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA
  • Relevant Experience: Dorianne Salmon is a partner in Perkins Coie's Intellectual Property practice. Her practice focuses on patent litigation, with experience across a range of technologies, including medical devices, software, and consumer electronics.

• Moeka Takagi

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA
  • Relevant Experience: Moeka Takagi is an associate in Perkins Coie's Intellectual Property practice. Her practice focuses on patent litigation, particularly in complex technical areas.

The filing of the complaint on May 28, 2024, by the University of British Columbia explicitly lists these attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP. The specific roles (lead, of counsel, etc.) are typically inferred from the firm hierarchy and the nature of their appearance in filings. Their office locations and experience are based on their respective firm profiles and general legal industry knowledge.

The defendants in the case University of British Columbia v. Caption Health, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03200) are Caption Health, Inc. and GE Healthcare Technologies Inc.. They are represented by the law firm Thompson Hine LLP.

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s) are:

• Marla R. Butler

  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Thompson Hine LLP, Atlanta, GA
  • Relevant Experience: Specializes in high-stakes intellectual property and technology litigation, arbitrations, and trials across various high-tech industries including medical, semiconductor, power, and networking. She has served as lead counsel in multiple patent infringement cases involving artificial intelligence and medical imaging and recently secured a "no violation" holding in a patent litigation at the International Trade Commission.

• Jeffrey Cooper Metzcar

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Thompson Hine LLP, Dayton, OH
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on all aspects of patent law, including litigation, prosecution, and invalidity and infringement studies, representing both patent owners and accused infringers across diverse technologies.

• Jesse Leigh Jenike-Godshalk

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Thompson Hine LLP, Cincinnati, OH (inferred based on professional activities)
  • Relevant Experience: Resolves disputes involving all types of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, with experience in advising on IP disputes, mediation, and litigation. He has spoken on topics related to AI in healthcare and the workplace.

• Andrew Himebaugh

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm: Thompson Hine LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on intellectual property and technology litigation, including patent, trademark, and copyright enforcement and defense across various industries such as automotive, telecommunications, software, and medical devices. He has experience with post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), and was part of a team that achieved a "no violation" ruling in an ITC patent litigation.