Axcess Instruments IP Holding Co v. Medtronic PLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Medtronic PLC (Ireland); Medtronic, Inc. (Minnesota); Medtronic USA, Inc. (Minnesota); Medtronic Xomed, Inc.; and Intersect ENT, Inc.
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00560, E.D. Tex., 05/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Defendant maintaining regular and established places of business in the district through both direct employees and authorized sales agents, for whom Defendant allegedly exercises significant control over compliance, training, and sales procedures.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SILS Port, a single-port laparoscopic surgery system, infringes three patents related to surgical access devices that enable instrument triangulation through a single incision.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to single-port access devices for minimally invasive surgery, which aim to reduce patient scarring and recovery time by minimizing the number of required incisions while preserving the surgeon's ability to manipulate instruments at angles (triangulation) for effective depth perception.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit through at least two events: citations to the patent family in the prosecution histories of patents belonging to Covidien (a company Defendant acquired in 2014) and direct notice provided by an agent of Plaintiff's predecessor around 2018.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-03-03	Priority Date for '153', '513', and '771' Patents
2009	SILS Port receives FDA clearance (developed by Covidien)
2014	Medtronic acquires Covidien
2017-11-21	U.S. Patent 9,820,771 Issues
c. 2018	Plaintiff alleges Medtronic received notice of patent portfolio
2019-10-01	U.S. Patent 10,426,513 Issues
2022-04-12	U.S. Patent 11,298,153 Issues
2025-05-21	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,298,153 - "Apparatus and Method for Minimally Invasive Surgery," issued April 12, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a challenge in minimally invasive surgery where multiple (three to five) incisions are traditionally required to achieve "triangulation"—the nonparallel insertion of instruments needed to create three-dimensional vision and depth perception for the surgeon ('153 Patent, col. 1:45-62). Using a single port with parallel channels was known to limit the field of view and depth perception ('153 Patent, col. 1:63-67).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a single surgical access device, or "body flange," designed to be placed in a single incision ('153 Patent, col. 3:15-24). The preferred embodiment of this device contains multiple internal passageways ("conduits") that are arranged in a "crisscrossed" or non-parallel configuration. This allows surgical instruments to be inserted through a single point on the patient's body but to diverge within the body cavity, thereby recreating the triangulation necessary for complex procedures without requiring multiple external incisions ('153 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 3:35-38). The complaint includes a copy of the patent's Figure 6 to illustrate these crisscrossed conduits (Compl. ¶37).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide the clinical benefits of triangulation, common in multi-port surgery, with the reduced scarring and faster recovery time associated with single-incision surgery (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• Claim 1 of the '153 Patent recites:
  • 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 two parallel surgical instrument passageways are located through the one-piece anchor body and terminate at an entrance aperture on the uppermost surface of the one-piece anchor body and at an exit aperture on the lowermost surface of the one-piece anchor body;
  • and wherein the two parallel surgical instrument passageways are dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation of two surgical instruments inserted therethrough.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 10,426,513 - "Apparatus and Method for Minimally Invasive Surgery," issued October 1, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '513 Patent shares a common specification with the '153 Patent and addresses the same problem: enabling surgical instrument triangulation through a single incision to avoid the drawbacks of traditional multi-port surgery and prior single-port designs ('513 Patent, col. 1:21-67).
• The Patented Solution: The solution described is identical to that of the '153 Patent, centering on a single access port containing non-parallel or "crisscrossed" conduits to allow instruments to diverge within the body cavity ('513 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-24).
• Technical Importance: As with the '153 Patent, the invention aimed to merge the benefits of single-incision access with the functional requirements of multi-port triangulation (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
• Claim 1 of the '513 Patent recites:
  • A system for performing a surgical procedure in a body cavity of a patient through a single incision, comprising:
  • an access port body for placement within the single incision and having at least first and second passageways extending therethrough in a common vertical plane;
  • a first surgical instrument extendible through the first passageway...;
  • at least a second surgical instrument extendible through the second passageway...;
  • wherein the first and second passageways extend through the access port body in a crisscrossed configuration and guarantee triangulation of the first and second surgical instruments within the body cavity of the patient in the common vertical plane.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,820,771, "Apparatus and Method for Minimally Invasive Surgery," issued November 21, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: The '771 Patent arises from the same family and describes the same core technology: a "one-piece body anchor" for single-incision surgery featuring at least two surgical instrument passageways that "crisscross each other" within the device. This configuration is designed to enable the triangulation of instruments inside the body cavity.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's SILS Port products infringe by incorporating a single-port body with crisscrossing passageways for surgical instruments (Compl. ¶42, ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s single-port robotic surgical methods and systems, including the SILS Port (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the SILS Port as a device used for performing laparoscopic surgery through a single access port (Compl. ¶42). The product was originally developed by Covidien, which received FDA clearance for it in 2009, and was acquired by Medtronic in 2014 (Compl. ¶43). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the internal structure or operation of the SILS Port, instead referencing an Exhibit 16 that is not attached to the complaint itself (Compl. ¶44).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement contentions, stating that such detail is provided in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶44). The analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

11,298,153 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a one-piece anchor body having two parallel surgical instrument passageways...	The complaint alleges the SILS Port is a single-port access device. It does not specify whether the passageways are parallel.	¶42	col. 7:31-38
...passageways... dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation of two surgical instruments...	The complaint alleges the SILS Port utilizes the patented methods for performing laparoscopic surgery.	¶42	col. 7:42-45

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the '153 Patent explicitly requires "parallel surgical instrument passageways." This appears to contradict the patent's preferred embodiment and the complaint's own technical summary, which both emphasize a "crisscrossed" (i.e., non-parallel) configuration to achieve triangulation (Compl. ¶40). A central question will be whether the accused SILS Port has parallel passageways, and if not, whether Plaintiff can sustain an infringement theory against this claim language.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires that the "parallel" passageways "facilitate triangulation." This raises the technical question of how parallel conduits can achieve triangulation, a function the patent's background section attributes to "nonparallel instrumentation" ('153 Patent, col. 1:58-62). The complaint does not explain how the accused product's structure allegedly meets this functional requirement.

10,426,513 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an access port body... having at least first and second passageways...	The complaint alleges the SILS Port is a single-port access device.	¶42	col. 7:6-10
wherein the first and second passageways extend through the access port body in a crisscrossed configuration...	The complaint alleges the SILS Port utilizes the patented "crisscrossed" access device structure.	¶42, ¶40	col. 7:17-19
and guarantee triangulation of the first and second surgical instruments...	The complaint alleges the SILS Port provides for triangulation within the patient.	¶39	col. 7:19-21

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the '513 Patent may turn on the definition of "crisscrossed configuration." The question for the court will be whether the specific internal geometry of the accused SILS Port falls within the scope of this term as it is used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 uses the strong functional language "guarantee triangulation." A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's structure, by itself, can "guarantee" this outcome, as opposed to merely enabling or facilitating it through surgeon skill. The complaint does not provide evidence to support this high functional bar.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '153 Patent:

• The Term: "parallel surgical instrument passageways... dimensioned and configured to facilitate triangulation"
• Context and Importance: This phrase presents a potential tension between a structural limitation ("parallel") and a functional one ("facilitate triangulation"). The patent specification primarily teaches that triangulation results from non-parallelism. The resolution of this term is fundamental to the infringement case for this patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might focus on "facilitate," arguing that parallel conduits could be part of a system that allows a surgeon to later angle the instruments inside the body cavity, thus "facilitating" triangulation without the conduits themselves being angled.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification explicitly distinguishes between parallel embodiments (e.g., Fig. 15) and the preferred "crisscrossed" embodiments (e.g., Fig. 6). Furthermore, the background states "Nonparallel instrumentation is necessary to create a 'depth of field'... This concept is commonly known as triangulation" ('153 Patent, col. 1:58-62), which could support an argument that "parallel" and "facilitate triangulation" are mutually exclusive within the patent's own lexicon.

For the '513 Patent:

• The Term: "crisscrossed configuration"
• Context and Importance: This term describes the core structural invention of the asserted claim. Its construction will define the scope of infringing geometries. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no specific details on the accused product's internal structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally as "non-parallel" introduction of instruments, suggesting any configuration that achieves this could be considered "crisscrossed" ('513 Patent, col. 3:19-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly Figure 6 and Figure 18A, depict a physical crossing of the conduit paths within the body of the device itself. A party could argue the term should be limited to such direct, internal intersection.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Defendant for allegedly providing instructional materials, manuals, and videos that instruct users on how to use the accused SILS Port in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶48, ¶58, ¶68). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the SILS Port is a material component not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶49, ¶59, ¶69).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge dating back to at least 2014, when Defendant acquired Covidien, whose patent applications had cited the patents-in-suit, and also alleges notice was provided around 2018 by an agent of Plaintiff's predecessor (Compl. ¶50-51, ¶60-61, ¶70-71).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope dissonance: For the '153 Patent, can the explicit claim requirement for "parallel" passageways be reconciled with the function of "facilitating triangulation," which the patent's own disclosure primarily attributes to non-parallel, "crisscrossed" structures?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: For the '513 and '771 patents, which require a "crisscrossed configuration," does the accused SILS Port actually contain such a structure, and does that structure "guarantee triangulation" as the strong claim language demands? The resolution will depend on technical evidence not present in the complaint.
• A central question for damages will be the imputation of knowledge: Can Plaintiff successfully establish that Defendant's 2014 acquisition of a company whose patents cited the asserted patent family, or an alleged 2018 notice, constitutes the pre-suit knowledge and intent required to prove willful infringement?