Litigation
RICMIC, LLC v. Vigil Health Solutions Inc.
Active2:2025cv00586
- Filed
- 2025-05-27
Patents at issue (1)
Plaintiffs (1)
Defendants (1)
Summary
RICMIC, LLC filed a patent infringement case against Vigil Health Solutions Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on May 27, 2025. The case is currently active.
Case overview & background
Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.
RICMIC, LLC has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Vigil Health Solutions Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, RICMIC, LLC, appears to operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), as its stated business interest in prior litigation involved selling or exclusively licensing its patents. The defendant, Vigil Health Solutions Inc., is an operating company specializing in innovative call systems and resident monitoring solutions for senior living and healthcare facilities, offering products like nurse call systems, wireless emergency call systems, resident check-in, fall and incontinence monitoring, and passive monitoring for dementia care. Vigil operates on a business-to-business model, selling its systems to senior living communities and healthcare organizations.
The lawsuit, filed on May 27, 2025, alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,311,707. This patent describes "Systems and methods for real-time sweat sampling and analysis," which involves a sweat collecting device with a concave sweat-collecting surface designed for continuous real-time collection and analysis of human sweat, including the removal of salt ions. The specific accused product(s) in this case are not detailed in public search results, but in a previous lawsuit filed by RICMIC against Vigil in 2022, the "Vigil Wireless Nurse Call System" and emergency call systems utilizing the "Vigil Mobile alert notification tool" were identified as infringing products. It is important to note that the technical domain of the asserted patent (sweat sampling) appears incongruous with Vigil Health Solutions' primary business of senior care monitoring systems, based on publicly available information.
The case is currently active in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly juries, a fast-paced "rocket docket" for patent cases, and established local rules. While the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision tightened patent venue requirements, the EDTX remains a significant forum for patent litigation, with some plaintiffs employing strategies to establish venue there. The assigned judge for this specific case is not readily available in public search results. This case is notable as it represents a continued assertion pattern by RICMIC, LLC against Vigil Health Solutions Inc., following a similar patent infringement suit filed by RICMIC against Vigil in the Southern District of California in 2022. There is no publicly available information regarding parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) IPR proceedings for the asserted patent in relation to this specific case.
Key legal developments & outcome
Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.
RICMIC, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vigil Health Solutions Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on May 27, 2025, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,311,707. The case is currently active.
Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:
Filing & Initial Pleadings:
- 2025-05-27: RICMIC, LLC filed the complaint initiating the patent infringement case against Vigil Health Solutions Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
- 2025-10-02: Vigil Health Solutions Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint.
- 2025-10-02: Vigil Health Solutions Inc. also filed its Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement, identifying Corporate Parent ASSA ABLOY AB and Corporate Parent ABLOY Canada Inc. No counterclaims are mentioned in the available docket information.
Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
- 2025-08-18: An Order was issued setting a Scheduling/Case Management Conference.
- 2025-09-30: A Scheduling Conference/Case Management Conference was held before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. During this conference, the court inquired about the parties' consent to trial before a U.S. Magistrate Judge and provided Claim Construction and Jury Selection/Trial dates.
- 2025-10-03: A notice was issued informing parties about the availability of a U.S. Magistrate Judge to conduct proceedings, including trial, with consent.
- 2025-10-14: A Joint Motion for Entry of Proposed Agreed Discovery Order was filed.
- 2025-10-17: An Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, granting the Joint Motion for Discovery Order.
- 2025-10-21: A Joint Motion for Protective Order (Agreed) was filed by RICMIC, LLC.
- 2025-11-03: A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, terminating the Joint Motion for Protective Order.
Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
- While Claim Construction dates were provided during the September 30, 2025, scheduling conference, no outcome or specific Markman order has been reached or detailed in the available information as of November 13, 2025.
Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
- 2025-09-16: RICMIC, LLC filed a Notice of Compliance with Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.
- 2025-10-22: RICMIC, LLC filed a Notice of Discovery Disclosure regarding Initial and Additional Disclosures.
- 2025-10-22: Vigil Health Solutions Inc. also filed a Notice of Compliance regarding Initial and Additional Disclosures.
- 2025-11-13: Vigil Health Solutions Inc. filed a Notice of Compliance with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4.
Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
- As of the last retrieved docket entry (November 13, 2025), the case is in its early stages of litigation, with discovery and scheduling ongoing. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.
Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
- The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. No settlement, dismissal, or final judgment has been entered.
Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
- A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database for U.S. Patent No. 10,311,707 did not identify any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to this specific patent.
Plaintiff representatives
Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing RICMIC, LLC in the case RICMIC, LLC v. Vigil Health Solutions Inc. (2:2025cv00586) in the Eastern District of Texas using publicly available web search snippets. While the existence of the case and its filing date are confirmed, the detailed PACER docket sheet listing counsel has not appeared in the search results.
To definitively identify the counsel of record, including their roles, firms, office locations, and specific patent litigation experience for this particular case, direct access to the PACER docket or a legal news source explicitly reporting these details for 2:2025cv00586 would be necessary. Such information is typically found in the initial appearance filings or the case's electronic docket.
Defendant representatives
Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
I was unable to identify the counsel of record for defendant Vigil Health Solutions Inc. in RICMIC, LLC v. Vigil Health Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:2025cv00586, filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
My searches for the case docket and attorney appearances did not yield specific counsel information for the defendant in this particular case. While I found a related case in the Southern District of California involving the same parties (Case No. 3:2022cv00190), the attorneys listed there are not necessarily the same for the Eastern District of Texas matter, especially given the different filing date (2022 vs. 2025) and jurisdiction.
It is possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared on the public docket for this specific Eastern District of Texas case, or the filings containing this information are not readily accessible through public web searches at this time.