July 24, 2014

VitalStim and Three Others Assert Infringement of Four Patents Against eSwallow USA

VitalStim, LLC (VitalStim), ESD, LLC (ESD), DJO, LLC ((DJO), and Empi, Inc. (Empi) filed suit on December 3, 2012, against eSwallow USA, LLC (eSwallow) asserting infringement of four patents:  U.S. Patent 5,725,564 (the ‘564 Patent), U.S. Patent 5,987,359 (the ‘359 Patent), U.S. Patent 6,104,958 (the ‘958 Patent), and U.S. Patent 7,280,873 (the ‘873 Patent) (collectively, the Dysphagia Patents).  The plaintiffs allege that they, among themselves, either own or exclusively license the patents, or are sublicensed by the exclusive licensee.

VitalStim alleges its own status as an innovator in the development of safe and effective treatments for patients suffering with difficulty swallowing or dysphagia.  The VitalStim® Therapy System is presented on its website as follows:


The complaint alleges that the managing principal of eSwallow was a former distributor of the  VitalStim® Therapy System.  In additional to the implication of knowledge through that former relationship, VitalStim alleges that the User Manuals for VitalStim products covered by the Dysphagia Patents have been continuously marked with three of the four patents since 2005 in compliance with 35 USC § 287.[1]

VitalStim alleges that eSwallow has infringed the Dysphagia Patents with “an electrical pharyngeal neuromuscular stimulator, identified as the eSwallow Dysphagia Therapy Unit Models 9950/9960.  The following image of a Stimulation Unit appears on the eSwallow website:

eSwallow allegedly uses, offers, for sale and sells the infringing products and educates its distributors and the general public on the use of the product thereby inducing purchasers to infringe.  Direct infringement is alleged against eSwallow for all four patents and eSwallow is further alleged to have indirectly infringed the ‘564, ‘359, and ‘873 Patents.

The case is VitalStim, LLC, et. al v. eSwallow USA, LLC., No. 1:12-cv-4163-JOF, filed 12/03/12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Owen Forrester

[1]The ‘873 Patent is a method patent.
Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Kirk Watkins, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Business Litigation Attorney

Kirk manages and tries complex business litigation, patent and international arbitration disputes. He believes thorough preparation and strategic theme development result in successful trials or settlements.    


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.