TMT Systems v. Medtronic: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 15 Days
TMT Systems, Inc. brought a patent infringement appeal against medical device giant Medtronic, Inc. at the Federal Circuit, asserting US7101393B2 against the Endurant, Endurant II, and Endurant IIs stent graft product lines. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the proceeding under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) just 15 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
A Federal Circuit stent graft appeal that closed almost as soon as it opened
TMT Systems, Inc. filed Case No. 25-1059 at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 15 October 2024, asserting patent infringement of US7101393B2 against Medtronic, Inc.’s Endurant, Endurant II, and Endurant IIs stent graft product family. The appeal was represented by Capshaw DeRieux LLP for TMT Systems and Winston & Strawn, LLP for Medtronic — both firms with significant patent litigation track records.
The proceeding closed on 30 October 2024 — just 15 days after filing — when the parties jointly agreed to dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court’s order confirms each side bears its own costs. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, leaving the door open to re-filing or a settled resolution that was not disclosed on the docket.
A 15-day lifespan at the Federal Circuit strongly suggests the parties had reached, or were on the cusp of, a resolution before the appeal was even formally briefed. Whether that resolution involved a licensing arrangement, a settlement of the underlying dispute, or a strategic withdrawal is not apparent from the public record. The speed of dismissal, combined with a cost-neutrality order, is consistent with a negotiated outcome rather than a unilateral concession by either party.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 15 days
15 days from filing to dismissal — among the shortest Federal Circuit appeal lifespans on record
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by agreement, not on the merits
Rule 42(b) permits parties to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal by stipulation or on motion. The court’s order confirms the dismissal was consensual — ‘the parties having so agreed.’ Critically, no merits ruling was issued: the court did not affirm, reverse, or vacate any lower court decision. The underlying patent validity and infringement questions remain judicially unresolved at the appellate level.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal can be entered with or without prejudice, which determines whether TMT Systems can re-assert the same claims against Medtronic in future proceedings. The court order in Case No. 25-1059 does not specify either condition. Until further public filings clarify the position, it would be inaccurate to characterise this dismissal as permanently barring TMT Systems from future action — or as preserving an unconditional right to re-file.
Prejudice terms undisclosedTMT Systems exits the Federal Circuit without a ruling in its favour
TMT Systems initiated this appeal and then agreed to its dismissal within 15 days. Without a merits decision, the company obtains no appellate validation of its infringement position regarding US7101393B2. Whether TMT Systems extracted value through a confidential settlement — or simply withdrew strategically — cannot be confirmed from the public record. The cost-neutrality order suggests neither party was penalised.
No appellate win on recordMedtronic avoids a Federal Circuit ruling on Endurant stent graft infringement
Medtronic, Inc. escapes this appeal without a merits finding against it regarding the Endurant, Endurant II, and Endurant IIs product lines. The rapid dismissal is commercially favourable in that it avoids appellate scrutiny of the underlying infringement and validity questions tied to US7101393B2. However, the absence of a definitive ruling means the patent’s enforceability against Medtronic’s products has not been adjudicated at this level.
No adverse ruling enteredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TMT Systems, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7101393B2 covering endovascular graft technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Medtronic, Inc. | Company | Medtronic, Inc. — global medical device manufacturer; maker of Endurant stent graft lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L. DeRieux | Attorney | Counsel for TMT Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Capshaw DeRieux LLP | Law Firm | Representing TMT Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John F. Myers | Attorney | Counsel for Medtronic, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston & Strawn, 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 court’s order — ‘the parties having so agreed’ — confirms this was a consensual, non-adversarial exit from the Federal Circuit. No standard of review was applied; no infringement or validity finding was made. The phrasing of the order under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is procedurally neutral, carrying no implication of merit on either side. The cost-neutrality clause reinforces that no party was adjudged to have prevailed, which is consistent with a confidential resolution reached before substantive appellate proceedings commenced.
US7101393B2 — Endovascular graft device technology
US7101393B2, filed under application number US10/624864, protects technology in the endovascular graft space — broadly encompassing devices used in minimally invasive repair of aortic aneurysms. The patent was asserted against Medtronic’s Endurant, Endurant II, and Endurant IIs stent grafts, which are among the leading commercially deployed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) systems worldwide. The application lineage and claim scope relevant to this family were not adjudicated in the present appeal.
In strategic terms, US7101393B2 represents potential leverage over a significant slice of the EVAR market. Medtronic’s Endurant platform commands substantial global revenue, making any credible patent claim against it commercially significant. The absence of a merits ruling means the patent’s enforceability against next-generation stent graft designs — including those from other manufacturers — remains an open question that competitors and investors should track closely.
Should your stent graft or EVAR product team run an FTO on US7101393B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes endovascular graft systems, aortic stent grafts, or related delivery devices, US7101393B2 warrants direct FTO scrutiny. The patent was asserted against one of the market’s highest-volume EVAR platforms. Because no invalidity or non-infringement finding was issued at the Federal Circuit, the patent remains presumptively valid and potentially enforceable against products with comparable structural or functional characteristics.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7101393B2 against your product architecture in minutes, surface related continuations or divisional filings in TMT Systems’ portfolio, and identify prior art that could support an invalidity position. For R&D teams developing next-generation EVAR or endograft technology, proactive FTO analysis against this patent family is a prudent step before product launch or licensing negotiations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7101393B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in endovascular and stent graft technology
Cases involving stent graft and EVAR patent assertions at the Federal Circuit, including voluntary dismissals, infringement findings, and validity challenges in endovascular device IP.
What this case signals for the endovascular device IP landscape
A 15-day Federal Circuit dismissal in a stent graft patent dispute raises pointed questions about pre-appeal settlements and assertion strategy in medical device IP.
Speed of dismissal strongly suggests a pre-briefing resolution between the parties
Appeals dismissed within 15 days at the Federal Circuit — before any briefing schedule is set — typically signal that settlement or licensing discussions were already advanced at the time of filing. Companies operating in the endovascular device space should monitor whether TMT Systems pursues similar actions against other stent graft manufacturers.
US7101393B2 remains a live litigation risk: no validity ruling was issued
Because the appeal was dismissed without merits adjudication, US7101393B2 has not been invalidated or narrowed by the Federal Circuit. Any competitor in the endovascular graft sector whose products share design characteristics with the Endurant family should assess their freedom-to-operate exposure under this patent.
TMT v Medtronic — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 30 October 2024, just 15 days after filing. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US7101393B2 was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
The case involved US7101393B2, an endovascular graft technology patent, asserted against Medtronic’s Endurant, Endurant II, and Endurant IIs stent graft products — a leading family of endovascular aortic repair devices sold globally by Medtronic.
The court order does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The public docket is silent on this point. The legal consequences — including whether TMT Systems can re-assert the same claims — depend on terms that have not been disclosed in the public record.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is procedural and does not adjudicate the merits of the patent infringement or validity dispute. US7101393B2 remains presumptively valid. No Federal Circuit ruling limits or narrows its enforceability as a result of this dismissal.
The 15-day timeline from filing to dismissal suggests the parties had already reached or were close to a resolution before the appeal was formally briefed. The cost-neutrality order is consistent with a negotiated exit. Whether a licensing agreement or financial settlement was involved is not disclosed on the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.