AMO Development v. Alcon: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 97 Days
AMO Development, LLC appealed against Alcon, Inc. and related Alcon entities at the Federal Circuit over US9233024B2, a patent covering methods and apparatus for creating ocular surgical and relaxing incisions. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed after just 97 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
A rapid Federal Circuit exit: AMO Development drops appeal against Alcon
AMO Development, LLC, represented by Latham & Watkins LLP, filed this infringement appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 6 January 2023, naming Alcon, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Vision, LLC, and Alcon Research, LLC as defendants. The appeal centred on US9233024B2 (application no. US13/569103), a patent directed to methods and apparatus for creating ocular surgical and relaxing incisions — a technology relevant to precision ophthalmic surgery.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states: 'The motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. The appeals are dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs.' No merits ruling was issued; the Federal Circuit did not adjudicate the underlying infringement claims or the validity of US9233024B2. The specific terms that may have prompted the motion to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 13 April 2023 — just 97 days after filing. A voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit level this early in the appellate cycle typically suggests the parties had resolved or de-escalated their dispute before briefing was complete, though the precise commercial or legal drivers are not disclosed in the public record. What remains unknown is whether any licensing arrangement, covenant, or other agreement underpins the dismissal.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 97 days
97 days from filing to dismissal — well below the Federal Circuit's typical merits resolution timeline
US9233024B2 — Ocular Surgical and Relaxing Incision Methods
R&D teams and product leaders developing ophthalmic surgical platforms — particularly those involving laser cataract surgery, corneal relaxing incisions, or automated incision creation tools — should treat US9233024B2 as an active risk. The patent survived this appeal without any validity or infringement determination, meaning it remains fully enforceable against method-and-apparatus implementations in the ocular incision space. Medical device companies, contract manufacturers, and surgical software developers are all potentially within scope.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order is purely procedural: the court granted AMO Development's motion for voluntary dismissal and terminated the appeals without reaching the merits of the underlying infringement action concerning US9233024B2. No findings on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement liability are recorded. The cost-neutral disposition — each party bearing its own costs — is consistent with a negotiated exit, though the specific terms driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Voluntary dismissal: what the Federal Circuit exit means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal ends appeal without any merits adjudication
A motion for voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit terminates the appeal procedurally, with no ruling on the underlying infringement or validity questions. The court's order confirms the appeals are dismissed and that each party bears its own costs. Because no merits decision was issued, US9233024B2 is neither confirmed enforceable nor invalidated by this proceeding.
No merits rulingAMO retains the patent but foregoes an appellate merits win
AMO Development retains US9233024B2 in its portfolio; the dismissal does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or invalidity. However, AMO also foregoes any appellate ruling that might have strengthened its enforcement position. Whether the dismissal reflects a negotiated resolution or a strategic retreat is not disclosed in the public record. The patent remains available for future enforcement actions.
Patent survives, no rulingAlcon entities escape a Federal Circuit merits decision at this stage
The Alcon entities — Alcon, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Alcon Vision, and Alcon Research — avoid an appellate ruling on infringement liability tied to US9233024B2. The dismissal is cost-neutral and carries no precedential finding. Alcon's freedom to operate in the ocular surgical incision space is not formally adjudicated by this order, leaving the underlying IP dispute unresolved on the public record.
No liability findingUnresolved IP tension persists in the ophthalmic surgical incision market
With no merits ruling, competitors and product teams in the ophthalmic surgical device sector cannot draw definitive conclusions about the scope or validity of US9233024B2. The patent remains a live IP asset. Companies developing or commercialising ocular incision methods — laser cataract surgery platforms in particular — should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a clearance, and consider FTO analysis against the asserted patent.
IP risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AMO Development, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Alcon, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Alcon Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Alcon Vision, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Alcon Research, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Morin | Attorney | Counsel for AMO Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Latham & Watkins, LLP | Law Firm | Representing AMO Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the ophthalmic surgical incision IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from AMO Development v. Alcon — covering portfolio activity, technology filing trends, and competitive white space in ocular surgery.
AMO Development's ophthalmic surgical patent filing activity
AMO Development, a Johnson & Johnson Vision entity, holds a significant IP position in laser-guided ophthalmic surgery. Monitoring its continuation filings, divisional applications, and new grants in the ocular incision and femtosecond laser space can signal where AMO is extending enforcement coverage — and where competitors face emerging blocking risk.
AMO portfolio watchFiling trends in femtosecond laser and ocular incision technology
Patent filing activity in femtosecond laser cataract surgery and corneal relaxing incision methods has intensified as the market grows. Tracking filing trends by assignee, claim type, and IPC class in this domain reveals which players are building defensive or offensive IP positions — and where the technology is moving beyond current patent coverage.
Laser surgery IP trendsAlcon's patent position in surgical incision and laser ophthalmology
With four Alcon entities named in this appeal, understanding Alcon's own patent portfolio in ocular surgery — including defensive filings around incision methods, laser systems, and surgical workflow — is critical for competitive IP analysis. Alcon's R&D investment signals in this domain may inform future licensing dynamics with AMO and other rivals.
Alcon IP landscapeAdjacent R&D opportunities near US9233024B2's claim scope
US9233024B2's claims focus on methods and apparatus for creating ocular surgical and relaxing incisions. Adjacent white space may exist in AI-guided incision planning, intraoperative imaging integration, or novel energy modalities for corneal tissue modification — areas where patent density may be lower and innovation opportunity higher for new entrants and challengers.
Ocular surgery white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in ophthalmic surgical device disputes
Explore Federal Circuit infringement appeals involving ophthalmic surgical device patents, including cases against Alcon entities and AMO Development in the laser surgery space.
What this case signals for the ophthalmic surgical IP landscape
A fast voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit rarely signals a clean win for either side — it signals a shift in commercial calculus worth monitoring.
US9233024B2 remains enforceable: run FTO before entering this space
The appeal's dismissal without a merits ruling leaves US9233024B2 intact and available for future enforcement. Any company developing methods or apparatus for ocular surgical or relaxing incisions — including femtosecond laser platforms — should conduct a targeted freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent before commercialisation.
AMO Development's Federal Circuit posture signals active portfolio enforcement
Filing an infringement appeal at the Federal Circuit level indicates AMO Development is prepared to litigate patent rights in ophthalmic surgery technology. Even where appeals are later withdrawn, initial filing activity is a reliable signal of enforcement intent. Competitors should monitor AMO's broader portfolio in the surgical incision and laser ophthalmology space.
AMO v Alcon — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed. AMO Development's motion for voluntary dismissal was granted on 13 April 2023, 97 days after filing. The appeals were dismissed with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US9233024B2 was issued.
US9233024B2 (application no. US13/569103) was the patent at issue. It covers methods and apparatus for creating ocular surgical and relaxing incisions — technology relevant to precision ophthalmic surgery, including laser cataract and corneal relaxation procedures.
No. A voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit is a procedural termination of the appeal with no merits adjudication. US9233024B2 was neither invalidated nor found infringed or not infringed by this order. The patent remains in force and enforceable on the public record.
Alcon, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Vision, LLC, and Alcon Research, LLC were all named as defendants. The available record does not specify which entity was alleged to perform which infringing act; naming multiple affiliates typically reflects a plaintiff's effort to capture all entities involved in making, using, selling, or offering for sale the accused products or methods.
The order that each party bears its own costs means neither side is entitled to recover appellate costs from the other. This is a cost-neutral outcome. It does not address attorneys' fees or any underlying district court cost award. The specific terms, if any, that accompanied the parties' agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.