Axonics v. Medtronic (24-2172): Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed on Unpatentability
Axonics, Inc. challenged Medtronic, Inc. before the Federal Circuit over US8457758B2, a patent covering alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer devices. The appeal was dismissed after the underlying patent was found unpatentable — a decisive outcome resolving the dispute in 191 days.
Federal Circuit dismisses Axonics–Medtronic TET patent appeal on unpatentability
Axonics, Inc. filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 5 August 2024, challenging proceedings related to US8457758B2 — a patent directed at alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) systems. TET technology is central to implantable medical devices, enabling wireless power delivery through the skin to implanted neurostimulation systems. Medtronic, Inc., a dominant player in that device category, was the opposing party.
The case closed on 12 February 2025 when the Federal Circuit dismissed the proceeding. The basis of termination recorded is ‘Unpatentable,’ indicating the patent underlying the appeal had been found to lack patentability — most likely following an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A dismissal on this basis, rather than a merits reversal or affirmance, suggests the appeal became moot or procedurally untenable once the patent’s validity was extinguished.
At 191 days, the resolution is notably swift for a Federal Circuit appeal, consistent with a dismissal driven by an external administrative event rather than full appellate adjudication. The public record does not disclose whether settlement discussions occurred alongside the PTAB proceedings or whether Axonics plans further challenge options. The unpatentability finding represents a commercially significant outcome for Medtronic, removing a patent obstacle in the TET device space.
Filing to Unpatentable in 191 days
191 days — faster than the median Federal Circuit appeal, typically 12–18 months
Appeal dismissed on unpatentability: what this means for both parties
Dismissal without merits: appeal rendered moot by unpatentability
When a Federal Circuit appeal is dismissed on an ‘Unpatentable’ basis, the court typically ends the proceeding because the patent-at-issue has been cancelled — most often via a PTAB IPR final written decision. With no live patent to enforce, the appeal loses its subject matter, and dismissal follows as a procedural necessity rather than a ruling on the merits of the appellate arguments.
No merits adjudicationAxonics loses patent asset — enforcement avenue closed
For Axonics, dismissal grounded in unpatentability means US8457758B2 is no longer a viable enforcement tool. The patent cannot be reasserted in its cancelled form, and any pending infringement claims tied to it would also fall away. Axonics’ ability to protect TET alignment technology through this specific patent is extinguished unless a successful appeal of the unpatentability finding exists through a separate channel.
Patent asset cancelledMedtronic secures freedom to operate in TET alignment space
Medtronic, as the party that successfully challenged the patent’s validity (consistent with the unpatentability finding), benefits from a cleared IP landscape for TET alignment indication technology. The dismissal means no appellate reversal can revive this specific patent against Medtronic in the short term, strengthening its freedom to operate and reducing litigation exposure in the implantable neurostimulation device segment.
FTO strengthenedTET device sector: one less patent barrier in a competitive field
Transcutaneous energy transfer is a contested technology space, with alignment optimisation directly affecting clinical performance of implantable devices. The cancellation of US8457758B2 removes a potential licensing barrier for competitors developing TET-enabled neurostimulators. Companies active in sacral neuromodulation or spinal cord stimulation with wireless charging should note this outcome when assessing their FTO position and patent portfolio strategy.
Competitive landscape shiftFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axonics, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US8457758B2 covering TET alignment indicationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medtronic, Inc. — global medical device manufacturer, implantable neurostimulation systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samantha A. Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tensegrity Law Group LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s dismissal of this proceeding on an ‘Unpatentable’ basis indicates the appeal was terminated because the underlying patent — US8457758B2 — had its claims cancelled, most likely through a USPTO PTAB final written decision. This is not a ruling on the merits of any infringement or claim construction argument; rather, it reflects the mootness of the appellate proceeding once the patent ceased to exist as a legal right. Neither party obtained a substantive merits ruling from the Federal Circuit.
US8457758B2 — Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer
US8457758B2 was filed under application number US13/210852 and issued as a utility patent covering alignment indication technology for transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) systems. TET enables implantable medical devices — such as neurostimulators used in sacral neuromodulation — to receive power wirelessly through the skin, eliminating the need for percutaneous leads. Alignment between the external transmitter coil and the implanted receiver coil is critical for efficient energy transfer; this patent addresses methods or systems for indicating and optimising that alignment.
In the implantable device market, TET patents represent high-value IP because wireless charging is a key differentiator for next-generation devices. Axonics entered the sacral neuromodulation market as a direct Medtronic competitor, and patents covering TET alignment would be strategically significant in both product differentiation and competitive blocking. The cancellation of this patent through PTAB proceedings suggests the claims were found to lack novelty or non-obviousness — potentially over prior art in wireless power transfer or medical device charging systems.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8457758B2?
Medical device companies, OEMs, and component suppliers developing transcutaneous energy transfer systems — particularly those targeting implantable neurostimulators, cardiac devices, or cochlear implants — should note that US8457758B2 has been cancelled. While this specific patent no longer presents a direct infringement risk, the broader patent family stemming from application US13/210852 may contain related continuation or divisional patents with surviving claims covering alignment indication technology.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the full patent family around US8457758B2, identify related granted patents, and assess claim scope overlap with TET products under development. Running an automated FTO scan against the family before product launch can surface live claim risks that the cancellation of this specific patent does not eliminate — particularly where continuation applications have been filed with amended claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8457758B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in medical device TET and neuromodulation patents
Explore comparable Federal Circuit proceedings involving transcutaneous energy transfer, implantable neurostimulation patents, and PTAB-driven unpatentability dismissals in the medical device sector.
What this case signals for the implantable medical device IP landscape
A swift Federal Circuit dismissal grounded in unpatentability reshapes the TET technology IP map — with direct consequences for device makers and portfolio holders.
PTAB remains a powerful tool for clearing TET and neuromodulation patents
This outcome is consistent with Medtronic using IPR proceedings to neutralise competitor patents before they generate appellate leverage. Companies competing in transcutaneous energy transfer and implantable neurostimulation should audit their exposure to PTAB challenges on existing patents — particularly patents with broad method or system claims around wireless power alignment.
Speed of dismissal suggests administrative, not judicial, resolution
A 191-day Federal Circuit resolution is unusually fast for substantive appellate review. This timeline is consistent with the appeal being mooted by a PTAB final written decision cancelling the claims, rather than the court adjudicating the substance. Practitioners should monitor PTAB dockets in parallel with any Federal Circuit appeals to anticipate mootness risks.
Axonics v Medtronic — key questions answered
The proceeding was dismissed because the underlying patent, US8457758B2, was found unpatentable. When a patent’s claims are cancelled — typically through a PTAB IPR final written decision — a pending Federal Circuit appeal based on that patent loses its subject matter and is dismissed as moot. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit.
In the context of this Federal Circuit case, ‘Unpatentable’ as the basis of termination indicates the patent at issue, US8457758B2, had its claims found unpatentable — most likely following a USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding such as an inter partes review. This extinguishes the patent rights and renders related appellate proceedings moot.
US8457758B2 covers alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) systems. TET technology wirelessly delivers power through the skin to implanted medical devices, such as neurostimulators. Alignment indication refers to systems or methods that help optimise the positioning of external and implanted coils to maximise energy transfer efficiency.
The cancellation removes a specific IP enforcement tool Axonics could have used against Medtronic in the transcutaneous energy transfer space. Axonics may retain related patents from the same family, but this patent can no longer be asserted in its cancelled form. Medtronic gains stronger freedom to operate in TET alignment indication technology as a result.
The public record of case 24-2172 does not indicate whether Axonics has or will pursue further challenge to the unpatentability finding through separate appellate channels. If the unpatentability arose from a PTAB final written decision, Axonics’ appeal of that decision to the Federal Circuit would be a distinct proceeding. The dismissal in 24-2172 itself forecloses no independent appellate avenue against the PTAB decision.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.