Colibri Heart Valve v. Medtronic: $106.5M Mixed Judgment After Jury Trial
Colibri Heart Valve LLC sued Medtronic over two patents covering percutaneous replacement heart valve technology. After nearly three years of litigation in the Central District of California, a jury awarded Colibri $106,489,000 on claims 1–3 of US8900294, while Medtronic secured summary judgment on the companion patent US9125739.
Heart valve patent dispute ends in split: $106M verdict, partial Medtronic win
Colibri Heart Valve LLC filed suit on May 4, 2020 in the Central District of California against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic PLC, asserting infringement of two U.S. patents: US8900294 ('294), covering a percutaneous replacement heart valve and delivery/implantation system, and US9125739 ('739), covering a method of controlled release of such a valve. The accused products were Medtronic's CoreValve family of transcatheter aortic valves, placing this dispute at the center of a high-stakes commercial segment of interventional cardiology.
The case produced a split result. On November 17, 2021, the Court granted Medtronic summary judgment of non-infringement on claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the '739 patent and on claim 4 of the '294 patent. The surviving claims of the '294 patent proceeded to jury trial beginning January 31, 2023 before Judge David O. Carter. On February 8, 2023, the jury returned a verdict entirely in Colibri's favor on claims 1–3 of the '294 patent, finding induced infringement and validity, and awarding $106,489,000 in damages. The Court entered final judgment accordingly, with prejudgment interest, costs, and post-judgment interest still to be fixed.
The resolution timeline reflects the complexity inherent in multi-patent medical device litigation: summary judgment disposed of one patent and several claims more than 14 months before trial, narrowing the trial to a single set of claims. What drove the jury's $106.5M figure — and how prejudgment interest and ongoing post-judgment interest will affect the total — is not fully resolved in the available record. Whether Medtronic will appeal either the jury verdict or the damages award is also not disclosed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Mixed Judgment in 1046 days
1,046 days from filing to close — roughly 35 months, above median for complex patent trials in C.D. Cal.
US8900294 & US9125739 — Percutaneous Replacement Heart Valve Technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or commercialising percutaneous heart valve delivery or implantation systems in the United States should assess freedom-to-operate against US8900294 claims 1–3, which now carry a jury-affirmed infringement finding against a major market participant. US9125739 was resolved in Medtronic's favour at summary judgment, but the claim scope and prosecution history remain relevant context for design-around analysis in controlled-release valve deployment methods.
Official order — verbatim text
The February 8, 2023 jury verdict — covering claims 1–3 of US8900294 only — represents a complete plaintiff win on the claims submitted to trial: induced infringement found, validity upheld, and $106,489,000 awarded. Read alongside the prior summary judgment, the final judgment reflects a claim-by-claim split: Colibri's delivery system claims survived; Medtronic's non-infringement defence on the controlled-release method patent succeeded. The damages figure, while jury-determined, remains subject to augmentation through prejudgment interest and costs not yet fixed by the Court.
Mixed judgment: what the split ruling means for both parties
How a mixed judgment works in patent litigation
A mixed judgment reflects partial wins for each party. Here, Medtronic eliminated the '739 patent and claim 4 of the '294 patent at summary judgment — a merits ruling with no damages exposure on those claims. Colibri then prevailed at trial on claims 1–3 of the '294 patent. The final judgment is a court-entered order combining both outcomes, binding on all parties and enforceable for the $106,489,000 jury award plus interest and costs.
Partial plaintiff victoryColibri secures $106.5M but loses companion patent
Colibri prevailed on the core commercial claims of the '294 patent, with the jury finding induced infringement and rejecting Medtronic's invalidity arguments. The $106,489,000 award, plus prejudgment interest and costs still to be determined, represents a significant recovery. However, Colibri lost all asserted claims of the '739 patent at summary judgment, limiting the scope of its enforced IP estate against Medtronic's CoreValve line.
Damages awarded; '739 patent extinguishedMedtronic wins on '739 but faces $106M+ liability
Medtronic's early summary judgment win on US9125739 and claim 4 of the '294 patent significantly narrowed its exposure. Nevertheless, the jury's unanimous finding of induced infringement on claims 1–3 of the '294 patent — with no invalidity finding — leaves Medtronic liable for $106,489,000 plus interest and costs. Whether Medtronic will pursue post-trial motions or an appeal is not disclosed in the available record.
Partial win; substantial damages liabilityTAVR IP enforcement: high-stakes, high-recovery precedent
A nine-figure jury verdict in transcatheter heart valve litigation signals that juries in C.D. Cal. are prepared to award substantial damages in complex medical device patent disputes. For competitors in the TAVR space, the '294 patent's claims 1–3 survive with an infringement finding intact. Companies developing or commercialising percutaneous valve delivery systems should assess freedom-to-operate against the '294 patent's remaining claim scope.
TAVR sector IP risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Colibri Heart Valve, LLC | Company | Medical device IP licensor — holder of US8900294 and US9125739 (percutaneous heart valve)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic PLC — global medical device manufacturer, CoreValve TAVR product lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Medtronic, PLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam K. Mortara | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carolyn C. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hector Julian Ribera | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John M. Hughes | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John S. Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph C. Smith , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine E. Rhoades | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew R. Ford | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meg E. Fasulo | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mieke K. Malmberg | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan J. Marton | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven E. Derringer | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taylor J. Kelson | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Theodore D. Kwong | Attorney | Counsel for Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barlit Beck LLP | Law Firm | Representing Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hilgers Graben, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP | Law Firm | Representing Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mortara Law | Law Firm | Representing Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Skiermont Derby LLP | Law Firm | Representing Colibri Heart Valve, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James M. Heintz | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn Bridget Riley | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Martin M. Ellison | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Ganas | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Safraz Ishmael | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stanley J. Panikowski , III | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the percutaneous heart valve IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Colibri v. Medtronic dispute — tracking portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in TAVR technology.
Colibri's heart valve IP portfolio beyond the '294 and '739 patents
Colibri Heart Valve LLC asserted two patents in this case, but enforcement entities in this space typically hold broader portfolios. Mapping Colibri's full filing activity — including continuations, divisionals, and related applications — can reveal additional claim families that may cover next-generation percutaneous valve designs or deployment methods not yet litigated.
Colibri portfolio mappingTAVR delivery system patent filing trends post-2020
The transcatheter aortic valve replacement sector has seen sustained patent filing activity from established players and new entrants since 2020. Tracking claim-level trends in valve delivery mechanics, controlled deployment, and sheath-based release systems can surface both crowded design spaces and areas where differentiated innovation remains protectable.
TAVR filing trendsMedtronic's CoreValve-adjacent patent activity after the verdict
Following a $106M induced-infringement verdict, Medtronic has strong commercial incentives to design around US8900294 claims 1–3 or to assert its own IP against Colibri. Analysing Medtronic's recent filings in percutaneous valve delivery and controlled-release deployment can reveal design-around trajectories and potential counter-assertion assets.
Medtronic design-around signalsUnprotected claim space in minimally invasive valve implantation
The claim dispute in this case centred on delivery system mechanics and controlled-release methods. Adjacent technical areas — such as valve anchoring, repositionability, valve-in-valve configurations, and biodegradable delivery sheath materials — may represent innovation white space with lower patent density, offering R&D teams protectable territory near the contested art.
TAVR innovation white spaceSimilar patent cases: percutaneous heart valve & TAVR IP disputes
Explore comparable infringement actions involving transcatheter heart valve patents litigated in the Central District of California and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the cardiovascular device IP landscape
A $106M induced-infringement verdict on a TAVR delivery patent reshapes enforcement economics for percutaneous heart valve IP.
Induced infringement theory produced a nine-figure verdict in TAVR
Colibri's trial success rested on induced infringement — a theory requiring proof that Medtronic actively encouraged physician use in an infringing manner. The jury's full acceptance across all three surviving claims, combined with a validity finding, demonstrates that induced infringement can be a potent and commercially high-value theory in interventional cardiology patent disputes.
Summary judgment as a cost-control tool in multi-patent cases
Medtronic's early win on US9125739 and claim 4 of the '294 patent at summary judgment — 14+ months before trial — reduced both litigation cost and damages exposure on those claims. Defendants in multi-patent medical device cases should prioritise early claim-by-claim dispositive motion strategy to narrow trial scope and limit jury exposure.
Colibri v Medtronic — key questions answered
The case ended in a mixed judgment. A jury awarded Colibri $106,489,000 against Medtronic on claims 1–3 of US8900294 (percutaneous heart valve delivery system), finding induced infringement and upholding validity. Medtronic had previously won summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims of US9125739 and on claim 4 of US8900294. Prejudgment interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284 remain to be fixed by the Court.
Colibri asserted two U.S. patents: US8900294 (application no. US14/253656), covering a percutaneous replacement heart valve and delivery/implantation system, and US9125739 (application no. US14/253650), covering a method of controlled release of a percutaneous replacement heart valve. The '739 patent was disposed of at summary judgment in Medtronic's favour; claims 1–3 of the '294 patent proceeded to trial.
The jury, returning its verdict on February 8, 2023 after a trial beginning January 31, 2023 before Judge David O. Carter, found that Medtronic induced infringement of claims 1–3 of US8900294 and that those claims are not invalid. The jury awarded Colibri $106,489,000 in damages against Medtronic on those claims.
US9125739 was resolved before trial. On November 17, 2021, the Court granted Medtronic summary judgment of non-infringement on claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the '739 patent. Final judgment of non-infringement on those claims was entered in Medtronic's favour. The controlled-release method patent did not proceed to jury trial.
An induced infringement finding under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires proof that the defendant actively encouraged or instructed a third party — typically physicians or healthcare providers — to use the patented method or system. The jury's acceptance of this theory on all three surviving claims, combined with a validity finding and a $106.5M damages award, signals that induced infringement can generate substantial liability in the TAVR sector where physician instruction is integral to product use.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.