Axcess Instruments v. Okamura Corporation: Dismissed With Prejudice in 170 Days
Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company filed a patent infringement suit against Okamura Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US10426513B2 in connection with the Olympus TriPort15 access device. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after 170 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
IP holding company exits E.D. Tex. suit with prejudice, barring refiling
On May 21, 2025, Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00561 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of US10426513B2 against Okamura Corporation. The asserted patent relates to surgical access device technology, and the accused product is the Olympus TriPort15 access device. Plaintiff was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a firm known for patent enforcement work in E.D. Tex., while Okamura retained Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
The case was resolved on November 7, 2025, when Axcess Instruments filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing the case. Critically, the dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Axcess Instruments is legally barred from reasserting the same claims against Okamura Corporation based on US10426513B2. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs.
Resolution within 170 days — before substantive motions practice would typically mature in E.D. Tex. — suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution or that the plaintiff assessed litigation risk and chose to exit. The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement or licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation makes this outcome more consequential than a routine early dismissal, as it extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to relitigate these specific infringement claims against this defendant.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 170 days
170 days — resolved before any significant merits briefing in E.D. Tex.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated, court-accepted dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here the court accepted and acknowledged the notice and entered a formal order, confirming the dismissal with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Axcess Instruments from bringing the same claims against Okamura on US10426513B2.
Final adjudication on the meritsAxcess Instruments forfeits all future claims against Okamura on this patent
A with-prejudice dismissal is the most consequential voluntary exit available to a plaintiff. Axcess Instruments can no longer assert US10426513B2 against Okamura Corporation for any past or ongoing infringement covered by this action. The plaintiff retains the patent and may enforce it against other parties, but the claim against Okamura is permanently extinguished. The absence of a cost award against the plaintiff suggests no adverse ruling preceded the exit.
Claims permanently barred vs. OkamuraOkamura walks away with prejudice protection and no cost exposure
Okamura Corporation secured a with-prejudice dismissal without having to litigate to judgment, meaning it faces no damages liability and no injunctive risk from this action. Crucially, Okamura cannot be sued again by Axcess Instruments on the same patent claims. Each party bearing its own costs means Okamura recovered no attorneys’ fees, which is consistent with early resolution before the court reached any ruling on the merits.
No damages, no fee awardTriPort15 remains on market; patent still enforceable against others
The Olympus TriPort15 access device faces no court-imposed restriction following this dismissal. For competitors or other distributors of similar surgical port access technology, US10426513B2 remains an active and enforceable patent — the dismissal resolves only the Okamura dispute. Other market participants working with comparable laparoscopic or multi-port access devices should treat this patent as live enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate analysis accordingly.
Patent active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company | Company | IP holding company — holder of US10426513B2 (surgical access device technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Okamura Corporation | Company | Okamura Corporation — accused of infringing US10426513B2 via Olympus TriPort15 deviceSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anna Grace Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for Okamura CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nirav N Desai | Attorney | Counsel for Okamura CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Okamura CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing Okamura CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s notice closely, confirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly denying all pending relief as moot. The with-prejudice language is the operative legal determination — it converts a procedural exit into a merits-equivalent bar. The costs order, directing each party to bear its own expenses, is neutral and provides no signal as to which party held the stronger substantive position. The absence of any merits ruling means the validity and infringement scope of US10426513B2 remains entirely undecided by this court.
US10426513B2 — Surgical port access device technology
US10426513B2, filed under application number US16/201193, covers surgical access device technology in the minimally invasive surgery space. The patent is asserted in connection with the Olympus TriPort15 access device, a multi-port surgical access system used in laparoscopic procedures. As a granted US utility patent held by an IP holding company, it represents a monetisation asset rather than a product patent, suggesting the claim scope may be drafted broadly enough to capture commercially deployed device configurations.
For companies operating in the laparoscopic access, trocar, and port-based surgical platform segments, US10426513B2 presents an active enforcement risk. IP holding companies with this type of patent asset historically pursue multiple defendants sequentially. The Okamura dismissal does not diminish the patent’s enforceability against others, and the lack of any IPR or court ruling on validity means the patent’s claims have not been tested at the PTAB or in litigation. Competitors commercialising functionally similar access device configurations should treat this as a live watch item.
Should you run an FTO against US10426513B2?
Any company manufacturing, distributing, or commercialising multi-port surgical access devices — including trocars, laparoscopic port systems, and comparable OEM configurations — should assess exposure to US10426513B2. The patent is held by an IP holding company that has already demonstrated willingness to file in the Eastern District of Texas, a jurisdiction favourable to plaintiffs. The Okamura case resolved without any merits ruling, leaving the claim scope entirely intact and potentially applicable to a broad range of surgical access products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US10426513B2’s claim language against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an invalidity position, and flag related patents in Axcess Instruments’ portfolio that may present additional risk. For R&D teams developing next-generation port access systems, running an FTO at the design phase is materially cheaper than litigation defence in E.D. Tex. Eureka can also monitor new filings by Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company to provide early warning of follow-on enforcement activity.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10426513B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar surgical access device patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving surgical access device patents asserted by IP holding companies in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable Rule 41 dismissals and early resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the surgical access device IP landscape
Early with-prejudice exits in E.D. Tex. IP actions often reflect shifting litigation economics or undisclosed commercial resolution.
With-prejudice exits in E.D. Tex. are rarely cost-free for plaintiffs
Voluntarily dismissing with prejudice after 170 days suggests Axcess Instruments weighed continued litigation risk against any potential recovery. IP holding companies filing in E.D. Tex. typically anticipate a full merits run; an early exit of this kind is consistent with defendant-side prior art pressure, claim scope concerns, or an undisclosed settlement that resolves the commercial dispute without a public record.
US10426513B2 remains enforceable — third parties should monitor closely
The dismissal resolves only the Okamura dispute. US10426513B2, covering surgical port access technology, is still active and held by an IP holding company with a demonstrated willingness to litigate. Manufacturers, distributors, and OEM partners working with multi-port access or trocar systems should conduct proactive FTO analysis against this patent before product launch or expansion.
Axcess v Okamura — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal bars Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company from reasserting the same patent claims under US10426513B2 against Okamura Corporation in any future action. Under FRCP 41, a dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Axcess retains the patent and may pursue other defendants, but its claims against Okamura are permanently extinguished.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only the specific dispute between Axcess Instruments and Okamura Corporation. US10426513B2 remains an active, granted US patent and can be enforced against other parties. No court or PTAB ruling addressed the patent’s validity or claim scope in this case, leaving the patent fully intact for future enforcement.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. Early with-prejudice voluntary dismissals in E.D. Tex. patent cases are consistent with an undisclosed settlement, a licensing agreement, or a plaintiff’s reassessment of litigation risk following defendant-side prior art or invalidity arguments. The retention of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox by Okamura suggests robust defence preparation may have been a contributing factor.
The Olympus TriPort15 is a multi-port surgical access system designed for laparoscopic procedures, allowing surgeons to introduce multiple instruments through a single incision. It was identified as the accused product in Axcess Instruments’ infringement complaint. The case was dismissed before any claim construction or merits ruling, so the specific infringement theory was never adjudicated.
Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, with Christopher A. Honea as lead counsel. Okamura Corporation was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, with Anna Grace Phillips and Nirav N. Desai as counsel. Sterne Kessler is widely recognised for its patent prosecution, IPR, and post-grant defence capabilities.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.