Axcess Instruments IP Holding Co v. Intuitive Surgical Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company (Texas)
  • Defendant: Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (Delaware); Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. (Delaware); Intuitive Surgical Sarl (Switzerland); and other related entities based in China, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Japan.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00559, E.D. Tex., 05/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, asserting that Defendants employ sales and service personnel who reside and conduct business there, and that Defendants have solicited employees to live and work in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Da Vinci SP single-port robotic surgical system infringes a patent related to minimally invasive surgical access devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns surgical ports that allow multiple instruments to pass through a single incision, aiming to reduce patient trauma while preserving the surgeon's ability to manipulate instruments effectively (a concept known as triangulation).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent family as early as 2009, based on citations made during the prosecution of at least seven of Defendant's own patents. The complaint also notes the asserted patent has been cited as relevant prior art in over 300 subsequent patent applications by various technology companies.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,298,153 - "Apparatus and Method for Minimally Invasive Surgery"

The patent is identified as U.S. Patent No. 11,298,153, issued April 12, 2022 (the “’153 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a challenge in laparoscopic surgery: achieving three-dimensional depth perception and instrument maneuverability ("triangulation") typically requires multiple incisions and access ports, which increases patient pain, recovery time, and infection risk (’153 Patent, col. 1:47-63). Prior single-port devices that used narrow, parallel channels were described as limiting the field of view and failing to provide adequate triangulation (’153 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single-port access device, or "body flange," that allows multiple instruments to pass through one incision while enabling triangulation. A key embodiment described in the specification involves a "crisscrossed plurality of conduits" which allows for "nonparallel introduction of equipment" through a single opening, thereby replicating the angular relationships of a multi-port surgery. (’153 Patent, col. 3:18-26; Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to provide the clinical benefits of single-incision surgery without sacrificing the crucial operational dexterity and depth perception afforded by traditional multi-port techniques (’153 Patent, col. 2:3-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 of the ’153 Patent (Compl. ¶44).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An access device for performing minimally invasive surgical procedures on a body, comprising:
  • a one-piece anchor body having two parallel surgical instrument passageways extending continuously therethrough;
  • from an uppermost surface of the anchor body to a lowermost surface of the anchor body;
  • wherein the passageways terminate at entrance and exit apertures on the anchor body's surfaces;
  • and wherein the two parallel surgical instrument passageways are dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation of two surgical instruments inserted therethrough.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, and to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Da Vinci SP System Instrument" as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶40).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a "single-port robotic surgical" system used for performing laparoscopic surgery (Compl. ¶40). It further alleges that the system is sold and marketed by the various Defendant entities, including through a joint venture established in 2016 for research, manufacturing, and sales related to "robotic-assisted catheter-based medical devices" (Compl. ¶¶10, 12). The complaint asserts these products incorporate the patented technology (Compl. ¶40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities, specifically the Da Vinci SP System, include each limitation of at least Claim 1 of the ’153 Patent (Compl. ¶41). However, the complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product's features to the claim language. Instead, it makes a general allegation of infringement and refers to an "Exhibit A," which was not included with the filed complaint, for a more detailed showing (Compl. ¶¶40, 41).

The narrative theory of infringement is that the Da Vinci SP System is a single-port surgical access device that falls within the scope of the patent's claims. To illustrate the underlying technology, the complaint includes a reproduction of Figure 6 from the ’153 Patent, which depicts an embodiment with crisscrossed conduits (Compl. ¶36, p. 13). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused system functions as a "body port or body flange access device" for single-port surgery and allows for triangulation, thereby practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶40). To support its venue allegations, the complaint includes a screenshot of a social media post advertising a job for a "Clinical Territory Associate" in Tyler, Texas, which it proffers as evidence of Defendant's business presence in the district (Compl. ¶28, p. 11).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The asserted independent claim requires "two parallel surgical instrument passageways," whereas the patent specification and the complaint's own technical summary heavily emphasize "crisscrossed" or "nonparallel" conduits as the solution to prior art limitations (Compl. ¶39; ’153 Patent, col. 3:18-21). A central dispute may arise over whether the term "parallel" should be given a strict geometric meaning and, if so, whether the asserted claim covers the allegedly infringing product.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the accused device's allegedly "parallel" passageways meet the functional requirement that they be "dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation." The complaint does not specify what feature of the Da Vinci SP system satisfies this limitation, raising the question of what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show the device is purposefully designed for this function, as opposed to triangulation being an inherent capability of any system allowing multiple instruments to work in a confined space.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "parallel"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical. The patent specification predominantly teaches "crisscrossed" conduits as the inventive feature that enables triangulation from a single port. Practitioners may focus on this term because the asserted claim's reliance on "parallel" passageways creates a potential disconnect with the patent's primary disclosure, which could impact the claim's scope and validity.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should not be read in isolation, pointing to the patent's statement that "it is possible to obtain triangulation with parallel apertures... and thus parallel apertures... are considered within the scope of the instant invention" (’153 Patent, col. 4:64-67). This suggests the patent contemplates parallel structures achieving the inventive goal.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a strict, geometrically parallel construction, contrasting it with the "crisscrossed" (i.e., non-parallel) embodiment detailed throughout the specification (e.g., ’153 Patent, Fig. 6, col. 3:18-21). This could be used to argue that the "parallel" configuration is a distinct and narrow embodiment.

The Term: "facilitate triangulation"

• Context and Importance: This functional limitation is coupled with the structural "parallel" requirement. The case may turn on whether the accused device, even if it has parallel conduits, is proven to be specifically "dimensioned and configured" to perform this function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to the specification's general description of triangulation as creating a "three-dimensional view" to argue that any design enabling this outcome "facilitates" it (’153 Patent, col. 5:49-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term requires more than an incidental result. They could contend that because the patent teaches that crisscrossed conduits "guarantee" triangulation (’153 Patent, col. 5:50-60), the parallel version must have some specific, disclosed dimension or configuration that actively aids the process, not just allows for it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by creating and distributing materials such as "videos of use... brochures, manuals, [and] instructional documents" that instruct end-users on how to operate the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶45).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent family. The complaint asserts that Defendant has been on "actual notice... at least as early as 2009, when it was cited in seven of its own patent file histories" (Compl. ¶47).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears poised to revolve around three central questions:

1. Claim Construction Mismatch: A core issue will be one of claim scope: can Claim 1, which explicitly recites "parallel" passageways, be construed to cover an accused product in light of a patent specification that repeatedly champions "crisscrossed" conduits as the key inventive concept? The resolution of this tension between the claim language and the specification will be fundamental to both infringement and validity.
2. Functional Limitation Proof: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: what proof will Plaintiff offer that the accused Da Vinci SP system's instrument channels are specifically "dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation," as required by the claim, rather than triangulation being an inherent, unclaimed property of multi-instrument surgical systems?
3. Contested Venue: The complaint's detailed allegations regarding employees working from home in the district suggest a significant preliminary battle over venue. The court will likely have to determine whether these arrangements constitute a "regular and established place of business" for the Defendant under current Federal Circuit standards.