Hologic v. Minerva Surgical: Consent Judgment After 1,030 Days in Delaware
Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Minerva Surgical, Inc. in the District of Delaware, asserting US9095348B2 covering a moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation. After 1,030 days of litigation, the parties reached a consent judgment, with each side bearing its own attorneys' fees.
Surgical energy IP dispute resolved by agreed court judgment in Delaware
Hologic, Inc. and its subsidiary Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC filed suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on July 8, 2020, asserting infringement of US9095348B2, which covers a moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation — a technology relevant to endometrial ablation and related surgical energy devices. Minerva Surgical is a competing developer of endometrial ablation systems.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order states that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses in the actions are dismissed with prejudice, and that each party will bear its own attorneys' fees and any costs not previously taxed and paid by Minerva Surgical to Hologic. The consent judgment is a binding, court-entered resolution agreed to by both parties, ending the litigation in its entirety.
The case ran for 1,030 days before reaching resolution — a timeline consistent with complex patent litigation in Delaware. What drove the parties to this agreed resolution, and the specific substantive terms beyond the cost-bearing provision, are not disclosed in the available public record. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a notable feature of the stipulation.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 1030 days
1,030 days from filing to consent judgment — above the median for Delaware District patent cases
US9095348B2 — Moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation
If your R&D or product team is developing moisture transport components, contact electrocoagulation systems, or endometrial ablation devices, US9095348B2 is a directly relevant patent to assess. Hologic has demonstrated active enforcement of this patent through multi-year federal litigation in Delaware, and the patent remains in force following the consent judgment. Product teams commercialising in this space without an FTO analysis carry material risk.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order dismisses all claims, counterclaims, and defenses with prejudice, and allocates costs such that each party bears its own fees, with the exception of costs already taxed and paid by Minerva to Hologic prior to this order. The with-prejudice standard bars re-litigation of all disputed issues between these parties in this forum. The reference to previously paid costs suggests at least one prior adverse costs ruling against Minerva during the proceedings.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means: a binding, agreed court order
A consent judgment is a formal court-entered judgment reflecting terms agreed upon by the parties. Unlike a simple voluntary dismissal, it carries the full force of a court order and can be enforced as such. Here, all claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed with prejudice — meaning neither party can re-litigate these specific disputes. The court retains authority to enforce the judgment if needed.
Binding & finalHologic and Cytyc: litigation concluded with prejudice
For Hologic and Cytyc, the consent judgment closes this particular enforcement action against Minerva Surgical with a prejudice bar on re-filing the same claims. The cost-sharing provision — each party bearing its own fees — means Hologic absorbs its own litigation costs. The specific substantive terms of the agreement beyond these provisions are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceMinerva Surgical: all counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Minerva Surgical's counterclaims and defenses are equally dismissed with prejudice under the consent judgment. Minerva also bears its own attorneys' fees, having previously paid certain costs to Hologic as noted in the stipulation. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses Minerva from re-raising its counterclaims in this forum. No further terms are disclosed in the available public record.
Counterclaims also extinguishedSurgical energy IP: consent judgments signal negotiated risk management
In the surgical energy and endometrial ablation device space, a consent judgment after multi-year litigation typically signals that both parties assessed litigation risk and elected a negotiated exit. US9095348B2 remains an active patent asset for Hologic. Competitors in the contact electrocoagulation and endometrial ablation space should treat this patent as an ongoing enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate analysis.
Active patent — monitor for enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hologic, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Minerva Surgical, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Assad Rajani | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karen L. Pascale | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Cohn | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pilar Gabrielle Kraman | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan J. Casamiquela | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William O. Young , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hologic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward G. Poplawski | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erik J. Carlson | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ian Robert Liston | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer A. Ward | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph E. Wolfson | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark H. Anania | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Olivia M. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige C. Hogan | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stacey A. Scrivani | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vera M. Elson | Attorney | Counsel for Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stevens & Lee PC | Law Firm | Representing Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC | Law Firm | Representing Minerva Surgical, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the surgical energy and electrocoagulation IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from the Hologic–Minerva Surgical dispute over moisture transport and contact electrocoagulation technology.
Hologic and Cytyc's filing activity in surgical energy IP
Hologic's enforcement of US9095348B2 alongside Cytyc Surgical Products suggests a coordinated portfolio strategy in surgical energy delivery. Monitoring Hologic and Cytyc's broader filing activity in moisture management, electrocoagulation, and endometrial ablation reveals the depth of their IP moat and signals where they are investing in next-generation device protection.
Hologic–Cytyc portfolio depthFiling trends in moisture transport for contact electrocoagulation
The moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation represents a technically specific niche within the broader surgical energy domain. Tracking patent filings in this area across multiple assignees can reveal whether competitors are actively attempting to design around Hologic's claims, and where the next wave of innovation — such as advanced fluid management or novel electrode materials — is emerging.
Electrocoagulation filing trendsMinerva Surgical's patent position in endometrial ablation
Minerva Surgical has invested significantly in its own IP for endometrial ablation systems. Understanding the depth and directionality of Minerva's patent portfolio — including any filings post-litigation — can inform competitors and partners about Minerva's R&D priorities and whether it is pursuing design-around strategies or new technology platforms in response to Hologic's enforcement posture.
Minerva post-litigation IP movesDesign-around opportunities adjacent to US9095348B2
The claim scope of US9095348B2 focuses on moisture transport mechanisms for contact electrocoagulation. Adjacent white space may exist in non-contact energy delivery, alternative fluid management architectures, or next-generation ablation modalities such as cryotherapy or microwave-based systems. Identifying these gaps can guide R&D investment away from Hologic's enforced claims.
Endometrial ablation white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in surgical energy and endometrial ablation
Browse comparable patent infringement disputes involving surgical energy devices and endometrial ablation technology litigated in the District of Delaware and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the surgical energy device IP landscape
This consent judgment highlights Hologic's willingness to enforce its surgical energy IP portfolio and the risk calculus facing competitors in the endometrial ablation space.
US9095348B2 remains active — endometrial ablation players face ongoing risk
The consent judgment does not invalidate US9095348B2. Hologic retains the patent and has demonstrated a readiness to litigate it in Delaware. Any company developing moisture transport or contact electrocoagulation systems for endometrial ablation should assess exposure to this patent before commercialisation.
Delaware remains Hologic's enforcement venue of choice for medical device IP
Filing in the District of Delaware is consistent with Hologic's broader enforcement strategy for its medical device portfolio. Delaware's predictable IP docket and experienced judiciary make it a favoured venue. Companies operating in the surgical energy device space should anticipate Delaware as a likely forum for any future Hologic enforcement actions.
Hologic v Minerva — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. All claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees, with the exception of costs previously taxed and paid by Minerva Surgical to Hologic prior to the order. The consent judgment was entered on May 4, 2023.
Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC asserted US9095348B2 (application number US13/962178), which covers a moisture transport system for contact electrocoagulation. This patent is relevant to endometrial ablation and surgical energy delivery technologies in which both Hologic and Minerva Surgical operate as competitors.
A consent judgment does not invalidate US9095348B2. The patent remains in force and enforceable. The consent judgment resolves only the specific dispute between these parties, with all claims dismissed with prejudice. Hologic retains full rights to assert US9095348B2 against other parties. The specific substantive terms beyond the cost provision are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case ran for 1,030 days from filing on July 8, 2020 to closure on May 4, 2023. This duration is consistent with complex patent litigation in the District of Delaware and suggests the parties engaged in substantive proceedings — including likely claim construction, discovery, and potential dispositive motion practice — before reaching the consent judgment.
Hologic and Cytyc were represented by Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, with attorneys including Assad Rajani, Karen L. Pascale, Marc A. Cohn, Pilar Gabrielle Kraman, Ryan J. Casamiquela, and William O. Young Jr. Minerva Surgical was represented by Stevens & Lee PC and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, with attorneys including Edward G. Poplawski, Ian Robert Liston, Erik J. Carlson, and others.
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.