Axcess Instruments IP v. Medtronic: Three-Patent Surgical Port Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company filed suit against Medtronic, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering surgical single-incision laparoscopic access port technology against Medtronic’s SILS Port product. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 161 days, leaving Medtronic’s exposure unresolved.
Three-patent surgical access port suit ends before merits are tested
Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company, a patent holding company, filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00560 against Medtronic, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on May 21, 2025, asserting infringement of three issued U.S. patents — US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2 — all directed at surgical access port technology. The accused product is Medtronic’s SILS Port, a single-incision laparoscopic surgery access device used in minimally invasive procedures.
On October 29, 2025, Axcess Instruments filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims without prejudice. The Eastern District court accepted and acknowledged the notice, denied all pending relief requests as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case. Critically, the dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, meaning Axcess retains the right to refile these claims against Medtronic at a future date.
At 161 days, the case resolved before any substantive merits proceedings are evident on the public docket, consistent with a pre-litigation settlement discussion, licensing negotiation, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or with a refined claim set. The public record does not disclose whether any agreement was reached between the parties, and the cost-bearing arrangement — each side covering its own expenses — is the default Rule 41 outcome, providing no additional signal about the commercial resolution.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 161 days
161 days — relatively short, suggesting early resolution before substantive proceedings
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: what it actually means
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This procedural mechanism requires no judicial approval on the merits, and the court’s role is limited to acknowledging the filing. No findings on validity, infringement, or claim scope are made — the slate is wiped clean procedurally.
No merits adjudicatedDismissed without prejudice: the refiling right preserved
This dismissal was explicitly without prejudice, as stated in both the plaintiff’s notice and the court’s order. A without-prejudice dismissal preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendant in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and patent-specific constraints. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or settlement underlies this voluntary exit.
Refiling right preservedAxcess retains all enforcement options on three surgical port patents
Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company exits this action with its patent portfolio intact and its infringement claims against Medtronic unresolved on the merits. The three patents — US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2 — remain valid and enforceable as issued. Axcess may refile in the Eastern District of Texas, or pursue alternative venues, IPR proceedings, or licensing discussions. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal is a significant strategic reservation.
Patents remain enforceableMedtronic avoids a merits ruling — but SILS Port exposure lingers
Medtronic obtains no declaratory judgment, no invalidity finding, and no non-infringement ruling from this dismissal. While the immediate litigation burden is lifted, the SILS Port product remains potentially exposed to reassertion of all three patents. Medtronic’s freedom to operate under US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2 is no more secure today than before the suit was filed. Ongoing FTO monitoring of Axcess’s portfolio is advisable for Medtronic’s IP and product teams.
Exposure not eliminatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company | Company | Patent holding company — asserting US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2 covering surgical access port technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medtronic, Inc. — global medical device manufacturer; maker of the accused SILS Port single-incision surgical access productSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Axcess Instruments IP Holding CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Axcess Instruments IP Holding CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is entirely procedural — it accepts the plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and closes the case, expressly without any merits determination. The explicit without-prejudice language in both the notice and the order is the operative fact: it forecloses any argument that Axcess has relinquished its infringement claims. The cost-bearing directive — each party its own fees — is the default Rule 41 outcome and carries no punitive or fee-shifting signal. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or infringement finding was reached.
US9820771B2, US11298153B2 & US10426513B2 — Surgical Access Port Technology
The three patents-in-suit — US9820771B2 (application US11/710388), US11298153B2 (application US17/080095), and US10426513B2 (application US16/201193) — cover surgical access port technology in the minimally invasive surgery domain. The application numbers span a significant filing timeline, suggesting a continuation or continuation-in-part family structure that progressively broadened or refined claim coverage across different port configurations, deployment methods, or use scenarios relevant to single-incision laparoscopic access.
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery ports are a competitive and IP-dense product category in surgical medtech. Medtronic’s SILS Port is a commercially significant product in this segment, and patent protection over port architecture, sealing mechanisms, or instrument access design can create durable barriers to competition. A continuation family of three issued patents held by a dedicated IP holding company — with Garteiser Honea as litigation counsel — signals an enforcement-oriented posture that competitors in minimally invasive surgical device markets should treat as an active threat.
Should you run an FTO against US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising single-incision laparoscopic surgical access ports or similar minimally invasive entry devices should treat this three-patent family as an active FTO concern. The dismissal without prejudice in this case means no court has ruled on claim scope or infringement — the patents’ reach against products like the SILS Port remains entirely open. R&D teams designing trocar systems, port seals, or multi-instrument access architectures should map their designs against the claim language of all three patents before product launch or design finalisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to run structured freedom-to-operate analyses across the US9820771B2 family in minutes. Upload your product specification or technical drawings, and Eureka will identify claim elements, flag overlap risk, and surface related prior art that may support an IPR petition strategy. With three continuation-linked patents in an active holding company portfolio, understanding the full claim landscape — not just the lead patent — is essential for defensible product decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9820771B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar surgical device patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving minimally invasive surgical access technology and medical device holding company assertions in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the surgical device IP landscape
An unresolved multi-patent dismissal in medtech is rarely the end of the story — it is typically a reset.
Without-prejudice exits are a common holding pattern in patent licensing
Voluntary without-prejudice dismissals in the Eastern District of Texas frequently precede licensing negotiations or refiling. When a holding company like Axcess exits without a merits ruling and without a with-prejudice concession, it typically signals ongoing commercial dialogue, a desire to sharpen claim mapping, or a venue strategy reassessment. Medtronic should not treat this closure as a clean exit.
Three-patent stacks in medtech increase defendant settlement pressure
Asserting three separate patents covering related surgical access port technology creates overlapping claim coverage that complicates a defendant’s invalidity and design-around strategy. Even if one patent is challenged, the remaining two maintain litigation leverage. IP teams at medical device companies facing multi-patent holding company suits should assess each patent independently for IPR viability before assuming a single challenge resolves exposure.
Axcess v Medtronic — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the court accepted it, explicitly noting dismissal without prejudice. Axcess retains the right to refile its infringement claims covering the SILS Port under US9820771B2, US11298153B2, and US10426513B2.
Axcess Instruments asserted three U.S. patents: US9820771B2 (application US11/710388), US11298153B2 (application US17/080095), and US10426513B2 (application US16/201193). All three relate to surgical access port technology, and the accused product is Medtronic’s SILS Port single-incision laparoscopic surgery access device.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal means no merits determination was made — no finding of infringement, non-infringement, or invalidity. For Medtronic, it means the immediate litigation is over, but the three asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. Axcess can refile the same claims in the future, so Medtronic’s freedom to operate under these patents has not been judicially confirmed by this outcome.
The case lasted 161 days, filed May 21, 2025, and closed October 29, 2025. This duration is consistent with pre-answer or early-stage voluntary dismissal, suggesting that substantive proceedings such as claim construction or discovery had not yet commenced at the time of dismissal.
The SILS Port is Medtronic’s single-incision laparoscopic surgery access port, used in minimally invasive surgical procedures to provide instrument access through a single incision site. Axcess Instruments alleged that the SILS Port infringed three patents covering surgical access port systems and methods. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before any court ruling on the merits of those infringement allegations.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.