DCT
1:25-cv-15119
Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Miracor Medical SA (Belgium)
- Defendant: Abbott Laboratories (Illinois) and Thoratec LLC (California/Delaware/Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-15119, N.D. Ill., 12/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Abbott Laboratories being an Illinois corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, and Thoratec LLC also having a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) systems infringe a patent related to magnetically driven pumps for assisting heart performance.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves implantable blood pumps, known as LVADs, which are critical medical devices used to support cardiac function in patients with advanced heart failure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to two prior lawsuits filed by Miracor against the same defendants in the same district (Case Nos. 1:23-cv-16257 and 1:25-cv-00484). This suit was filed after Defendants allegedly rejected Plaintiff’s request to add the patent-in-suit to the latter of the two prior cases.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 12,480,496 Priority Date |
| 2023-11-27 | Filing of related case 1:23-cv-16257 |
| 2025-01-15 | Filing of related case 1:25-cv-00484 |
| 2025-11-25 | U.S. Patent No. 12,480,496 Issues |
| 2025-12-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,480,496 (“Device to Assist the Performance of a Heart”), issued November 25, 2025 (the “’496 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a device that can reliably assist a failing heart, noting that conventional heart-lung machines provide forced circulation without adapting to the heart's specific needs, and other devices are intended only for brief interventions. A key challenge is developing a pump for sensitive fluids like blood that minimizes mechanical stress on the fluid. (’496 Patent, col. 2:7-15, 40-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an intravasal (within a blood vessel) rotary pump located at the end of a catheter. Its core innovation is a magnetic coupling system where a drive mechanism inside the catheter magnetically connects to and spins a rotor located outside the catheter, directly in the blood flow. This design achieves a "completely impervious separation of the rotor from the drive," which avoids axial passages and potential damage to the blood. (’496 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-48). The rotor itself has "guide surfaces" to generate centrifugal flow, actively pumping the blood. (’496 Patent, col. 2:56-59).
- Technical Importance: The use of a magnetic coupling and suspension for the pump's rotor aims to create a bearingless, non-contact system, which can reduce blood cell damage (hemolysis), a significant concern with mechanical heart pumps. (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 19. (’496 Patent, col. 4:47-6:61, 7:30-8:50; Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A blood flow path comprising an inflow tube and a first chamber.
- A blood outflow path to convey blood out of the first chamber.
- A magnetically driven rotor assembly, including a rotor and a first magnetic device, located entirely within the first chamber.
- A second magnetic device, sealed from the rotor assembly, that magnetically interacts with the first magnetic device to rotate the rotor.
- The magnetic interaction is further configured to orient the rotor assembly so it is "entirely spaced away from the one or more side walls of the first chamber."
- The rotor assembly has "guide surfaces" configured to "produce centrifugal components within the blood."
- The rotor assembly and second magnetic device are configured to be positioned outside the heart's ventricle.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "HeartMate 3" or "HeartMate 3 LVAD/LVAS" products, including the HeartMate 3 LVAD blood pump, HeartMate 3 System Controller, HeartMate 3 System Monitor, and HeartMate Touch Communication System (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) and Systems (LVASs) used for "assisting the performance of the heart." (Compl. ¶7, ¶13). These are devices for pumping blood to assist heart function. (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the internal mechanics, pump design, or rotor suspension technology of the HeartMate 3 system.
- The complaint alleges Defendants make, use, and sell these devices throughout the United States to treat heart conditions. (Compl. ¶12-13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement but references claim chart exhibits that are not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶27). The following table summarizes the infringement theory for claim 1 based on the patent's claim language and the complaint's general allegations against the Accused Products.
’496 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A heart assist pump device configured to be positioned within a patient's body... | The Accused Products are LVAD/LVAS systems, which are devices for assisting heart performance and are implanted in patients. | ¶7, ¶13 | col. 4:47-49 |
| a blood flow path comprising... an inflow tube... a first chamber... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products, including the HeartMate 3 LVAD blood pump, infringe the claims. This implies the pump contains the claimed blood flow path. | ¶13, ¶26 | col. 4:50-5:3 |
| a magnetically driven rotor assembly... located within the first chamber... | The complaint's infringement allegation suggests the HeartMate 3 LVAD blood pump contains a magnetically driven rotor assembly. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 5:16-24 |
| a second magnetic device... configured to interact magnetically with the first magnetic device to rotate the magnetically driven rotor assembly... | The infringement allegation implies the HeartMate 3 pump contains an external magnetic drive system that rotates the internal rotor. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 5:25-32 |
| the magnetic interaction... further configured to orient the magnetically driven rotor assembly... such that the... rotor assembly is entirely spaced away from the one or more side walls of the first chamber... | The complaint's allegation suggests the HeartMate 3 pump uses magnetic forces not only for rotation but also for levitation/suspension of the rotor. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 5:39-49 |
| the... rotor assembly further comprises guide surfaces... configured to produce centrifugal components within the blood... | The infringement allegation suggests the HeartMate 3 pump's rotor has surfaces that function as an impeller to create centrifugal blood flow. | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 5:50-56 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "entirely spaced away... by the magnetic interaction." This language suggests a fully non-contact, magnetically levitated rotor. The question for the court will be whether the Accused Product's rotor suspension system, which may use a combination of magnetic and hydrodynamic forces, meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence showing how the HeartMate 3 pump operates internally. A key factual question will be whether its rotor is, in fact, "entirely spaced away" from the pump housing solely "by the magnetic interaction," or if other forces or structures contribute to its positioning during operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "entirely spaced away from the one or more side walls of the first chamber by the magnetic interaction"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the scope of the invention's non-contact rotor system. Infringement will depend on whether the Accused Product, which is known in the art to feature a magnetically levitated rotor, achieves this suspension in a manner consistent with the claim's specific requirement that the spacing is maintained "by the magnetic interaction." Practitioners may focus on whether this language excludes systems where hydrodynamic forces also play a necessary role in maintaining rotor spacing during operation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term or disclaim other contributing forces. A party might argue that as long as magnetic interaction is the primary cause of the spacing, the limitation is met.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the unambiguous modifier "entirely" and specifies the spacing is accomplished "by the magnetic interaction," suggesting that magnetic forces alone must be sufficient to achieve the claimed spacing. The specification’s emphasis on a "completely impervious separation of the rotor from the drive" could be cited to support a construction requiring a fully magnetic, non-contact system. (’496 Patent, col. 2:44-45).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement is premised on Defendants providing technical support, manuals, and instructional materials to medical professionals, allegedly with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶28, ¶30).
- Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce, constitute a material part of the invention, and are especially designed to be used together in an infringing way. (Compl. ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having knowledge of the ’496 patent since at least its issue date of November 25, 2025. The complaint also pleads willful blindness as an alternative basis for knowledge. (Compl. ¶29, ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the HeartMate 3’s rotor suspension system function in a way that meets the claim limitation of being "entirely spaced away... by the magnetic interaction"? The case will likely require detailed expert testimony on whether the accused system relies exclusively on magnetic forces for levitation, or if hydrodynamic forces are also integral to its operation in a way that takes it outside the claim scope.
- A second key question will be one of claim construction: How the court defines the phrase "entirely spaced away" will be critical. A narrow construction requiring purely magnetic suspension could present a significant non-infringement defense, whereas a broader construction might encompass systems where magnetic forces are the dominant, but not sole, means of suspension.