Axcess Instruments IP Holding Co v. Olympus Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Olympus Corporation (Japan) and Olympus America Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00561, E.D. Tex., 05/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Olympus America Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices and employees in Plano and Frisco, Texas. For Olympus Corporation, a foreign entity, venue is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s single-port surgical access device infringes a patent related to minimally invasive surgical port technology designed to enable instrument triangulation through a single incision.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns laparoscopic surgical ports, which provide access to a patient's body cavity, and specifically addresses the challenge of achieving three-dimensional visualization and instrument maneuverability through a single point of entry.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a 2006 provisional application. The complaint notes that one of the named inventors is a co-founder of the Plaintiff entity. It further alleges the patent is "pioneering" and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 300 subsequent U.S. patent applications by major medical device companies.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,426,513 (“Apparatus and Method for Minimally Invasive Surgery”), issued October 1, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in minimally invasive surgery where achieving proper "triangulation" of surgical instruments—necessary for depth perception and maneuverability—traditionally required three to five separate incisions. Prior attempts at single-incision devices using parallel channels were described as limiting the field of view and depth perception. (’513 Patent, col. 1:44-54, col. 2:62-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single surgical access port, or "body flange," that contains multiple non-parallel, "crisscrossed" conduits. This design allows instruments to be inserted through one incision but diverge inside the patient's body, recreating the triangulation effect of multi-port surgery while using only a single entry point. (’513 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:34-38). The configuration is intended to reduce patient trauma and recovery time associated with multiple incisions. (Compl. ¶24).
• Technical Importance: The technology seeks to combine the reduced scarring and pain of single-incision surgery with the superior visualization and instrument control characteristic of traditional multi-incision laparoscopic procedures. (’513 Patent, col. 6:46-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 of the ’513 Patent are:
  • An access port body for placement within a single incision, having at least first and second passageways extending through it in a common vertical plane.
  • A first surgical instrument extendible through the first passageway.
  • A second surgical instrument extendible through the second passageway.
  • The first and second passageways extend through the access port body in a "crisscrossed configuration" that "guarantee[s] triangulation" of the instruments within the body cavity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Olympus TriPort15 access device. (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused product as a "single-port robotic surgical" access device. (Compl. ¶26). It is described as a "body port or body flange access device" used for performing laparoscopic surgery. (Compl. ¶26).
• The complaint alleges that these devices "utilize the Patents-in-Suits' patented body port or body flange access devices and methods," but does not provide specific technical details about the internal construction or operation of the TriPort15 device. (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but does not include a claim chart or provide the referenced Exhibit A containing a more detailed infringement analysis. The following chart summarizes the allegations for claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative.

’513 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Visual Evidence: The complaint provides Figure 6 from the asserted patent, which depicts a body anchor (1) with two crisscrossed apertures (2) designed to guide surgical instruments. (Compl. p. 8, Figure 6).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question of fact will be whether the Olympus TriPort15 device actually contains passageways in a "crisscrossed configuration." The complaint does not provide any specific evidence (e.g., product schematics, reverse engineering reports) detailing the internal structure of the accused device. The infringement case will depend on what discovery reveals about the TriPort15's design.
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused device's mechanism for separating instruments "guarantee[s] triangulation" as required by the claim. A question for the court could be whether a flexible port that merely allows for triangulation meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more rigid, fixed geometry that compels it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "crisscrossed configuration"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's novelty and the infringement allegation. Its construction will determine whether the claim scope is limited to channels that physically intersect or can be read more broadly to cover other non-parallel arrangements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification sometimes uses the term in conjunction with "non-parallel," suggesting the core concept is the avoidance of parallel channels. For example, it describes "two crisscrossed (non-parallel) apertures." (’513 Patent, col. 4:35-36). This may support an argument that any configuration enabling non-parallel instrument paths meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, particularly Figure 18A, and the description of how apertures "crisscross within the body anchor" could support a more limited definition requiring a physical intersection of the axes of the passageways. (’513 Patent, col. 4:7-9).

• The Term: "guarantee triangulation"

• Context and Importance: This term adds a functional requirement to the structural "crisscrossed configuration" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its product is a versatile port that permits many instrument orientations, including triangulated ones, but does not rigidly "guarantee" it.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase could be interpreted to mean that the device is designed such that, when used as intended, triangulation is the natural or default result. The patent states that the crisscrossed passageways "guarantee triangulation of the first and second surgical instruments." (’513 Patent, col. 7:18-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art where "guaranteed triangulation cannot be obtained," suggesting the term implies a fixed, non-optional geometric arrangement that ensures a triangulated outcome, as opposed to merely facilitating it. (’513 Patent, col. 6:55-57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Olympus allegedly providing materials such as "videos of use... brochures, [and] manuals" that instruct users on how to use the accused device in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶31). The contributory infringement allegation claims the TriPort15 device is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is especially adapted for an infringing use. (Compl. ¶32).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on two theories. First, it asserts that Olympus has had knowledge of its infringement since at least the filing of the complaint, supporting a claim for post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶33). Second, it alleges pre-suit willfulness under a theory of "willful blindness," claiming that Olympus maintains a "policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights." (Compl. ¶34).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical fact and claim scope: Does the accused Olympus TriPort15 device embody a "crisscrossed configuration," and does its structure "guarantee triangulation" as those terms are construed in light of the patent's specification? The resolution of this question will depend heavily on evidence produced during discovery concerning the precise design and operation of the accused product.
• A second key question will relate to willfulness: Can the plaintiff substantiate its allegation of "willful blindness" to establish the pre-suit knowledge required for enhanced damages, or will the claim be limited to potential post-suit conduct? This will turn on evidence regarding Olympus's internal policies and awareness of the competitive patent landscape.