Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
Patentability filed 14 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 7 Aug 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: vacated and remanded.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7774069B2US8457758B2US3942535AUS8738148B2US3888260A
- Case no.
- 22-1533
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 14 Mar 2022 – 7 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 511 days
- Basis of termination
- Vacated and Remanded
- Products & marks
- Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer · RECHARGEABLE DEMAND INHIBITED CARDIAC PACER AND TISSUE STIMULATOR · Rechargeable tissue stimulating system
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer
System for transcutaneous energy transfer. An implantable medical device, adapted to be implanted in a patient, has componentry for providing a therapeutic output. The implantable medical device has an internal power source and a secondary coil operatively coupled to the internal power source. An external power source, having a primary coil, provides energy to the implantable medical device when the primary coil of the external power source is placed in proximity of the secondary coil of the implantable medical device and thereby generates a current in the internal power source. An alignment indicator reports the alignment as a function of the current generated in the internal power source with a predetermined value associated with an expected alignment between the primary coil and secondary coil.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 10 Aug 2010
- Est. expiry
- 2 Mar 2026
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2020-00678 · Other · filed by Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OLSON, DAVID P. · SCHMELING, ANDREW L. · NELSON, STEVE J.
- Classification
- A61N1/378
- Prosecution counsel
- Husch Blackwell LLP
- Examiner
- BOCKELMAN, MARK W
Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer
System for transcutaneous energy transfer. An implantable medical device, adapted to be implanted in a patient, has componentry for providing a therapeutic output. The implantable medical device has an internal power source and a secondary coil operatively coupled to the internal power source. An external power source, having a primary coil, provides energy to the implantable medical device when the primary coil of the external power source is placed in proximity of the secondary coil of the implantable medical device and thereby generates a current in the internal power source. An alignment indicator reports the alignment as a function of the current generated in the internal power source with a predetermined value associated with an expected alignment between the primary coil and secondary coil.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Jun 2013
- Est. expiry
- 29 Apr 2025
- Validity challenges
- 4 on recordIPR2020-00680 · Other · filed by Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.IPR2020-00680 · Patentability · filed by AXONICS, INCIPR2020-00680 · Patentability · filed by AXONICS, INCIPR2020-00680 · Patentability · filed by AXONICS, INC.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OLSON, DAVID P. · SCHMELING, ANDREW L. · NELSON, STEVE J.
- Classification
- A61N1/08
- Prosecution counsel
- Husch Blackwell LLP
- Examiner
- BERTRAM, ERIC D.
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Axonics, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew James Isbester
- Firm
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
Medtronic, Inc.
- Core tech
- A61N1/378A61N1/08
- Counsel
- Naveen Modi
- Firm
- Paul Hastings, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew James Isbester | Axonics, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Naveen Modi | Medtronic, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“VACATED AND REMANDED”
Case 22-1533 · Fed. Cir. · closed 7 August 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1533?
22-1533 is a patent patentability brought by Axonics, Inc. against Medtronic, Inc., filed on 14 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 7 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1533?
US7774069B2 (“Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer”), assigned to MEDTRONIC, INC., currently inactive; US8457758B2 (“Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer”), assigned to MEDTRONIC, INC., currently inactive; US3942535A (“Rechargeable tissue stimulating system”), assigned to SIEMENS-ELEMA AB, A CORP OF SWEDEN; US8738148B2 (“Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer”), assigned to MEDTRONIC, INC.; US3888260A (“Rechargeable demand inhibited cardiac pacer and tissue stimulator”), assigned to THE JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. The record also lists Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer, RECHARGEABLE DEMAND INHIBITED CARDIAC PACER AND TISSUE STIMULATOR and Rechargeable tissue stimulating system.
How was case 22-1533 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is vacated and remanded. The termination text reads: “VACATED AND REMANDED”
How long did case 22-1533 take?
511 calendar days, from filing on 14 Mar 2022 to closure on 7 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1533?
Andrew James Isbester is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Axonics. Naveen Modi appears for defendant Medtronic.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1533 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.