Axonics v. Medtronic: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed (Case 24-2171)
Axonics, Inc. and Medtronic, Inc. jointly agreed to dismiss a Federal Circuit infringement appeal concerning US8738148B2, a patent covering alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer devices. The proceeding closed 191 days after filing under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs and no merits ruling issued.
Bilateral dismissal ends Federal Circuit clash over implantable energy transfer IP
Axonics, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 5 August 2024, challenging proceedings related to US8738148B2 — a patent covering alignment indication technology for transcutaneous energy transfer, a core function in rechargeable sacral neuromodulation implant systems. The defendant below, Medtronic, Inc., is the incumbent market leader in sacral neuromodulation, and Axonics has been a significant challenger in that space. The patent-in-suit relates to the wireless charging interface between an external transmitter and an implanted receiver, a technically and commercially sensitive area.
The appeal was terminated on 12 February 2025 when both parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. This procedural mechanism confirms the dismissal was consensual rather than compelled by the court. Crucially, the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and the Federal Circuit order is silent on underlying settlement terms, licence agreements, or any resolution of the substantive patent dispute.
At 191 days, the case closed well before a typical Federal Circuit appeal reaches oral argument, suggesting the parties reached a resolution — or at minimum a strategic alignment — relatively early in the appellate briefing schedule. What drove the mutual agreement to step back from the appeal remains unknown from the public record. It is possible the resolution reflects broader licensing or commercial negotiations between Axonics and Medtronic, which have been involved in extensive multi-front patent litigation; however, no such terms are confirmed in the available case data.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 191 days
191 days — appeal resolved before full Federal Circuit briefing cycle typically concludes
Appeal voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): a consent-based appellate exit
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits parties to jointly dismiss an appeal by agreement, without the court ruling on the merits. The Federal Circuit order confirms both parties ‘having so agreed’ — meaning the dismissal was bilateral and consensual. No merits analysis was conducted, no claim construction was affirmed or reversed, and the validity or infringement of US8738148B2 remains unadjudicated at this appellate level.
No merits ruling issuedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A dismissal with prejudice would bar Axonics from relitigating the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice would preserve that option. The court order states only that the proceeding is ‘DISMISSED’ under Rule 42(b) and does not specify either qualifier. This distinction carries significant strategic weight — particularly in a multi-front litigation context — but cannot be determined from the publicly available record. Practitioners should not assume either outcome absent further disclosure.
Prejudice status unconfirmedAxonics exits appeal without a Federal Circuit vindication
As appellant, Axonics sought appellate review of a lower-level disposition concerning US8738148B2. By agreeing to dismiss, Axonics foregoes any potential reversal or favourable ruling from the Federal Circuit at this stage. Whether this reflects a negotiated resolution, a commercial pivot — such as Medtronic’s announced acquisition of Axonics in 2024 — or a litigation strategy decision is not established by the public record, though the acquisition context is commercially notable.
No appellate reversal obtainedBilateral cost order signals a negotiated, not litigated, resolution
The equal costs order — each side bearing its own — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral capitulation. In high-stakes medical device IP disputes, mutual cost-bearing typically suggests the parties reached some form of broader accommodation. For competitors in the transcutaneous energy transfer and sacral neuromodulation space, the unresolved status of US8738148B2’s appellate challenge leaves the patent’s enforceability landscape formally unchanged pending any further proceedings.
Patent enforceability unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axonics, Inc. | Company | Medical device company — holder of US8738148B2 covering transcutaneous energy transfer alignmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Global medical device leader; incumbent sacral neuromodulation market participantSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Matthew Nathan | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Azra Hadzimehmedovic | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Powers | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samantha A. Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Nelson | 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 | Chetan Bansal | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Quadeer Ahmed | 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 order is narrow and procedural: it records only that both parties agreed to dismiss and that costs are split. No claim construction, no infringement finding, and no validity determination was made. The absence of a merits disposition means the order has no precedential value on the substance of US8738148B2. For practitioners, the phrasing ‘having so agreed’ confirms mutual consent, distinguishing this from a unilateral voluntary dismissal filed by one party alone under Rule 42(b)(1).
US8738148B2 — Alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer
US8738148B2, filed under application number US13/836527, protects technology for indicating the alignment between an external energy transmitter and an implanted receiver in a transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) system. TET technology is foundational to rechargeable implantable devices — including sacral neuromodulation systems — enabling wireless power delivery through intact skin. Alignment indication is a clinically significant feature: poor alignment reduces charging efficiency and patient compliance. The patent’s claims address the technical challenge of communicating alignment status to the user or system in real time.
In the sacral neuromodulation market, TET-based recharging has become a key differentiator between device generations, with Axonics positioning its rechargeable implant as a competitive alternative to Medtronic’s legacy non-rechargeable systems. A patent covering alignment indication for TET charging interfaces sits at the intersection of user experience, clinical efficacy, and device design — making it strategically valuable for both enforcement and design-around analysis. Any competitor developing a rechargeable sacral or pelvic floor neuromodulation implant with an external charger must engage seriously with the claims of this patent.
Should your team run an FTO against US8738148B2?
If your organisation is developing a rechargeable implantable device — particularly one in sacral neuromodulation, pelvic floor therapy, or any indication requiring a transcutaneous charging interface — the alignment indication claims of US8738148B2 are directly relevant to your FTO scope. The patent remains enforceable and its appellate challenge has been withdrawn without prejudice being confirmed. R&D teams designing external charger-to-implant communication systems should assess whether their alignment feedback architecture falls within the claim language.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map your product’s charging interface design against the claims of US8738148B2 and related family members in minutes. Eureka identifies design-around opportunities, flags prosecution history estoppel, and surfaces any post-grant proceedings that may affect claim scope — giving you a defensible clearance baseline before your next development milestone or regulatory submission.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8738148B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in transcutaneous energy transfer and neuromodulation IP
Explore comparable Federal Circuit appeals involving implantable device charging patents and neuromodulation IP disputes between medical device competitors.
What this case signals for the sacral neuromodulation IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal over energy transfer alignment IP leaves key enforceability questions open for the entire implantable neuromodulation sector.
US8738148B2 exits Federal Circuit review without a merits ruling
The bilateral dismissal means no appellate court has weighed in on the validity or scope of US8738148B2 at this stage. For device makers active in rechargeable sacral neuromodulation, this patent remains a live risk — its claims have not been narrowed, cancelled, or affirmed on appeal. Any company with a transcutaneous charging interface should assess exposure before the next enforcement cycle.
Equal cost-bearing is a signal, not a coincidence
Courts rarely impose equal cost arrangements spontaneously — here, it reflects the parties’ own agreement. In the context of Medtronic’s announced acquisition of Axonics, this resolution may be part of a broader IP alignment between the two companies. Competitors and licensees monitoring this patent family should treat the outcome as commercially motivated rather than legally determinative.
Axonics v Medtronic — key questions answered
The appeal was voluntarily dismissed on 12 February 2025 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of both parties. No merits ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The dismissal does not adjudicate the validity or infringement of US8738148B2.
US8738148B2 covers alignment indication for transcutaneous energy transfer — specifically, technology for communicating the positional alignment between an external wireless charger and an implanted receiver. This is a core function in rechargeable sacral neuromodulation implant systems. The patent was filed under application US13/836527.
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to dismiss an appeal by stipulation or motion. The Federal Circuit’s order in this case confirms both parties agreed to the dismissal. Critically, Rule 42(b) dismissals do not resolve the underlying substantive dispute — no claim construction, validity, or infringement analysis was conducted by the court.
The Federal Circuit order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar future appellate re-litigation of the same claims; without prejudice would preserve Axonics’ options. Practitioners cannot assume either outcome from the available order text.
The case record does not reference the Medtronic-Axonics acquisition, so no direct connection can be established from the litigation data alone. However, the timing of the bilateral voluntary dismissal — with mutual cost-bearing — is consistent with parties winding down adversarial proceedings in the context of a corporate transaction. If the acquisition closes, ownership of US8738148B2 would transfer, removing the adversarial basis for the appeal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.