Medtronic v. Axonics: Jury Clears Competitor on All SNM Patent Claims
Medtronic and its affiliates accused Axonics Modulation Technologies of infringing seven patents protecting the InterStim sacral neuromodulation system. After 1,816 days of litigation in the Central District of California, a jury returned a complete non-infringement verdict for Axonics on September 18, 2024, with costs awarded against Medtronic.
A five-year SNM patent war ends in a clean sweep for Axonics
Filed in November 2019, Medtronic’s suit against Axonics Modulation Technologies targeted the upstart’s rechargeable sacral neuromodulation system — a direct market challenger to Medtronic’s flagship InterStim Therapy platform. Medtronic asserted seven patents spanning implantable pulse generator design, therapy delivery, and charging technology, seeking to establish broad exclusionary rights over the SNM device category in the Central District of California.
The case resolved on two tracks. Prior to trial, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on claim 7 of US7774069B2 and claims 1, 4–7, 16–17, and 22 of US9821112B2. The remaining claims — across US8036756B2, US8626314B2, and US9463324B2 — proceeded to a nine-day jury trial beginning September 9, 2024. On September 18, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of non-infringement on every tried claim. The court entered final judgment accordingly and ordered Medtronic to bear Axonics’ litigation costs.
The near-five-year duration reflects the complexity of multi-patent SNM litigation and the scope of the asserted portfolio. Notably, while the jury found the asserted claims not invalid, Axonics prevailed entirely on non-infringement — meaning the patents survive but cannot be enforced against Axonics’ current product design. What drove the non-infringement finding — claim construction rulings, product design-arounds, or expert disputes — remains a matter of the trial record not fully visible in the public docket summary.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 1816 days
1,816 days — nearly five years from filing to jury verdict, well above the median for district patent trials
Jury verdict for Axonics: what the non-infringement finding means for both sides
Non-infringement verdict: patents valid but not violated
A jury non-infringement verdict means the fact-finder concluded that Axonics’ accused sacral neuromodulation products do not practice at least one limitation of each asserted claim. Critically, the jury also found the asserted claims not invalid — so Medtronic’s patents remain intact and enforceable, just not against Axonics’ current product configurations. This outcome is distinct from a finding of invalidity, which would extinguish the patents entirely.
Non-infringement, claims preservedMedtronic: patents survive but market exclusion fails
Medtronic retains valid patents across its SNM portfolio following the jury’s not-invalid findings. However, the company failed to obtain any injunctive relief or damages from Axonics and must now pay Axonics’ litigation costs. Medtronic may pursue post-trial motions or appeal, but the verdict signals that its current patent claims, as construed, do not reach Axonics’ product architecture. The competitive threat from Axonics in the SNM market remains unresolved by intellectual property enforcement.
No exclusion, costs liabilityAxonics: full clearance and cost recovery secured
Axonics achieved a complete defense win — cleared on all seven asserted patents through a combination of pre-trial summary judgment and a favorable jury verdict. The cost award under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 provides partial financial relief after nearly five years of litigation. Axonics can continue commercialising its r-SNM system without an injunction risk from this patent set, though the not-invalid finding means Medtronic retains patents it could potentially assert in redesigned product contexts or future litigation.
Full clearance, costs awardedSNM market rivalry continues without IP-imposed barriers
The verdict leaves the sacral neuromodulation device market open for Axonics to compete directly with Medtronic’s InterStim platform. For device manufacturers and investors, the outcome suggests that claim scope in Medtronic’s SNM portfolio may be narrower than initially asserted. Competitors developing SNM systems should nonetheless conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against the surviving valid claims, as their enforceability against differently designed products remains intact. Medtronic may reassess enforcement strategy or pursue design patent or trade secret avenues.
Market open, FTO caution warrantedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medical device giant — holder of US8036756B2 and six further sacral neuromodulation patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Company | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Medtronic USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Medtronic Logistics, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. | Company | Axonics Modulation Technologies — developer of rechargeable sacral neuromodulation implant systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Ferguson | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian J. Nisbet | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | George C. Lombardi | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joe Saratool Netikosol | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John R McNair | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Margaret E Dayton | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nimalka R. Wickramasekera | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert N. Kang | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert T Vlasis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samantha M Lerner | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vivek V. Krishnan | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | A. James Isbester | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron Matthew Nathan | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alton L. Hare | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | April Elizabeth Isaacson | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Azra M. Hadzimehmedovic | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christina Le Trinh | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Danielle C. Pfifferling | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Stein | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gina H Cremona | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John C Pierce | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Khashayar Stephen Shahida | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Douglas Powers | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Meyer | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan Chung | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Natasha Marusja Saputo | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel D. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samantha Ann Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sterling Arthur Brennan | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Taylor Jacqueline Pfingst | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen and Mauriel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Olson Stein LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tensegrity Law Group LLP | Law Firm | Representing Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment is unusually comprehensive in its enumeration — listing non-infringement findings claim-by-claim across three trial patents and two summary-judgment patents, while simultaneously confirming that none of the asserted claims are invalid. This structure signals the court’s intention to create a clear, appellate-ready record. The cost award under Rule 54, rather than attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, suggests the court did not find the case exceptional, but nonetheless recognised Axonics as the prevailing party entitled to routine cost recovery. Medtronic’s appellate options remain open.
US8036756B2 — implantable sacral neuromodulation pulse generator technology
The seven asserted patents collectively protect Medtronic’s InterStim sacral neuromodulation platform — covering implantable pulse generator architecture, lead and electrode configurations, wireless charging, external programming, and therapy delivery methods. US8036756B2, the lead patent, originates from application US11/352552 and addresses core stimulation delivery functionality. The portfolio spans filings from the mid-2000s through the mid-2010s, reflecting the evolution of SNM technology from first-generation non-rechargeable implants to sophisticated rechargeable miniaturised systems.
Sacral neuromodulation is a high-value medical device segment addressing urinary and bowel dysfunction, with Medtronic’s InterStim holding dominant market share prior to Axonics’ commercial entry. This portfolio was strategically assembled to create layered protection across hardware, software, and method claims — a common defensive approach by incumbent device makers facing well-funded challengers. The jury’s non-infringement finding on all tried claims suggests Axonics successfully engineered around the asserted claim boundaries, a result that will inform how other SNM entrants approach product design relative to this specific patent family.
Should you run an FTO against Medtronic’s SNM patent portfolio?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising sacral neuromodulation or implantable neurostimulation devices should treat this verdict as a starting point, not a clearance certificate. The jury found Axonics’ specific product did not infringe — but the asserted claims were simultaneously found not invalid. A differently designed SNM device may present a different infringement profile. Companies with rechargeable implantable neurostimulators, external charging systems, or wireless programming interfaces should specifically map their designs against the surviving claim scope of US8036756B2, US8626314B2, and US9463324B2.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly identify live claim scope across Medtronic’s SNM portfolio, flag continuation and divisional applications that may present new claim risk, and benchmark your device architecture against the specific claim language at issue in this case. Eureka’s claim mapping tools allow R&D and IP teams to run structured clearance analysis without starting from a blank page — helping you identify design-around opportunities before entering this fiercely contested device market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8036756B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar sacral neuromodulation and implantable neurostimulator patent cases
Cases involving implantable neurostimulation device patents litigated in the Central District of California and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the neuromodulation device IP landscape
A five-year, seven-patent campaign ending in complete defense victory reshapes how SNM competitors and investors should read Medtronic’s portfolio.
Valid but unenforceable patents are a double-edged sword for Medtronic
The jury’s not-invalid findings preserve Medtronic’s SNM patent estate, but the non-infringement outcome means those patents currently provide no competitive exclusion against Axonics. Companies monitoring the SNM space should track whether Medtronic files continuation patents with narrower or broader claims calibrated to Axonics’ product architecture.
Five-year litigation timelines should factor into SNM market entry models
At 1,816 days from filing to verdict, this case illustrates the prolonged uncertainty that multi-patent infringement campaigns impose. Axonics continued commercialisation throughout. Entrants into the implantable neuromodulation space should model patent litigation duration risk and litigation cost exposure as part of financing and product launch planning.
Medtronic v Axonics — key questions answered
A jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in favour of Axonics on September 18, 2024, covering asserted claims of US8036756B2, US8626314B2, and US9463324B2. Two additional patents — US7774069B2 and US9821112B2 — were cleared by summary judgment prior to trial. The court entered final judgment for Axonics and ordered Medtronic to pay Axonics’ costs.
Medtronic asserted seven patents: US8036756B2, US8626314B2, US9463324B2, US9821112B2, US7774069B2, US8457758B2, and US8738148B2. All relate to implantable sacral neuromodulation technology, covering pulse generator design, therapy delivery methods, wireless charging, and external programming systems used in the InterStim platform.
No. The jury found the asserted claims of the three trial patents — US8036756B2, US8626314B2, and US9463324B2 — not invalid while simultaneously finding non-infringement. This means Medtronic’s patents survived validity challenge and remain enforceable, but Axonics’ accused products were found not to infringe them.
No. The complete non-infringement verdict meant Medtronic received no damages award and no injunctive relief. The court instead ordered Medtronic to pay Axonics’ costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, recognising Axonics as the prevailing party. No finding of exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for attorneys’ fees is reflected in the public record.
Yes. As a final district court judgment, the verdict is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Medtronic may challenge claim construction rulings, jury instructions, or evidentiary decisions made during the trial. A successful appeal on claim construction — reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit — could potentially reopen infringement liability, though the factual non-infringement findings made by the jury would face a higher hurdle under the substantial evidence standard.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.