DexCom, Inc. v. Agamatrix, Inc.

1:17-cv-01310 D. Del. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 15 Sep 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 17 Mar 2020, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: stayed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US9724045B1US9750460B2
Case no.
1:17-cv-01310
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Judge
Richard G. Andrews
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
15 Sep 2017 – 17 Mar 2020
Duration
914 days
Basis of termination
Stayed
Products & marks
AgaMatrix Presto Pro Advanced Blood Glucose Monitoring System, AgaMatrix Jazz Wireless 2 Blood Glucose Monitoring System, AgaMatrix Amp Advanced Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Kroger Premium Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Kroger Blood Glucose Monitoring System, CVS Health Advanced Glucose Meter, and test strips - Blood glucose monitoring systems
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:17-cv-01310, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9724045B1 Inactive App. US15/481347

Systems and methods for replacing signal artifacts in a glucose sensor data stream

DEXCOM, INC.

Systems and methods for minimizing or eliminating transient non-glucose related signal noise due to non-glucose rate limiting phenomenon such as ischemia, pH changes, temperatures changes, and the like. The system monitors a data stream from a glucose sensor and detects signal artifacts that have higher amplitude than electronic or diffusion-related system noise. The system replaces some or the entire data stream continually or intermittently including signal estimation methods that particularly address transient signal artifacts. The system is also capable of detecting the severity of the signal artifacts and selectively applying one or more signal estimation algorithm factors responsive to the severity of the signal artifacts, which includes selectively applying distinct sets of parameters to a signal estimation algorithm or selectively applying distinct signal estimation algorithms.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
8 Aug 2017
Est. expiry
22 Aug 2023
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2018-01716 · Other · filed by Agamatrix, Inc.IPR2018-01715 · Other · filed by Agamatrix, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61B5/00A61B5/1486A61B5/1495A61B5/145
Prosecution counsel
Dexcom, Inc.
US9724045B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US9724045B1, from the published patent document
US9724045B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US9724045B1, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
US9750460B2 Inactive App. US15/488190

Systems and methods for replacing signal artifacts in a glucose sensor data stream

DEXCOM, INC.

Systems and methods for minimizing or eliminating transient non-glucose related signal noise due to non-glucose rate limiting phenomenon such as ischemia, pH changes, temperatures changes, and the like. The system monitors a data stream from a glucose sensor and detects signal artifacts that have higher amplitude than electronic or diffusion-related system noise. The system replaces some or the entire data stream continually or intermittently including signal estimation methods that particularly address transient signal artifacts. The system is also capable of detecting the severity of the signal artifacts and selectively applying one or more signal estimation algorithm factors responsive to the severity of the signal artifacts, which includes selectively applying distinct sets of parameters to a signal estimation algorithm or selectively applying distinct signal estimation algorithms.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
5 Sep 2017
Est. expiry
22 Aug 2023
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2018-01718 · filed by Agamatrix, Inc.IPR2018-01717 · Other · filed by Agamatrix, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
A61B5/00A61B5/05A61B5/145A61B5/1495A61B5/1486
Prosecution counsel
Dexcom, Inc.
US9750460B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US9750460B2, from the published patent document
US9750460B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US9750460B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Benjamin J. SchladweilerDexCom, Inc.Plaintiff
Rodger Dallery Smith IIAgamatrix, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

Case 1:17-cv-01310 · D. Del. · closed 17 March 2020
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming DexCom, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for diagnosis & surgery
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:17-cv-01310?

1:17-cv-01310 is a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against Agamatrix, Inc., filed on 15 Sep 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 17 March 2020.

Which patents were asserted in 1:17-cv-01310?

US9724045B1 (“Systems and methods for replacing signal artifacts in a glucose sensor data stream”), assigned to DEXCOM, INC., currently inactive; US9750460B2 (“Systems and methods for replacing signal artifacts in a glucose sensor data stream”), assigned to DEXCOM, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists AgaMatrix Presto Pro Advanced Blood Glucose Monitoring System, AgaMatrix Jazz Wireless 2 Blood Glucose Monitoring System, AgaMatrix Amp Advanced Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Kroger Premium Blood Glucose Monitoring System, Kroger Blood Glucose Monitoring System, CVS Health Advanced Glucose Meter, and test strips - Blood glucose monitoring systems.

How long did case 1:17-cv-01310 take?

914 calendar days, from filing on 15 Sep 2017 to closure on 17 March 2020.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:17-cv-01310?

Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Benjamin J. Schladweiler is recorded as counsel for plaintiff DexCom. Rodger Dallery Smith II appears for defendant Agamatrix.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:17-cv-01310 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysisScope, search, claim review and the report counsel will ask for.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsCompetitor patent monitoring tools compared

Browse related dockets
Cases in D. Del. Cases on diagnosis & surgery All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:17-cv-01310 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.