Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 1:23-cv-16257, is currently ongoing in the Illinois Northern District Court. The plaintiff and patent owner is Miracor Medical SA, a company focused on developing medical devices, specifically for cardiac care. The defendants are Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC, both prominent operating companies in the medical device industry, particularly known for their cardiovascular and heart failure technologies. The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement by Abbott and Thoratec's products or services related to cardiac assist devices.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,351,357, titled "Device to assist the performance of a heart". This patent generally describes a heart ventricle catheter featuring a fluid-driven rotary pump at its distal end, designed to enhance blood circulation. The pump incorporates a drive wheel, which can be hydraulically or pneumatically operated, and is magnetically coupled to a rotor. Although specific accused products are not detailed in the available snippets, the nature of the patent suggests the infringement allegations likely target Abbott and Thoratec's heart assist devices or related components that utilize similar rotary pump technology for blood circulation.

The case was filed on November 27, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As of early 2025, the district court issued an "Order to Temporarily Stay Case Deadlines," which often indicates a pause in district court proceedings while parallel challenges are addressed. Indeed, the case is notable for the multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) initiated by Abbott Laboratories against Miracor Medical SA's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Several IPRs, including IPR2025-00112 (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,351,357) and others such as IPR2025-00116 (challenging related patent U.S. Patent No. 11,754,077 B1), were filed in late 2024 and instituted by the PTAB in June 2025. This aggressive use of IPRs by a large operating company against a smaller medical device developer highlights a common strategy to challenge patent validity and resolve disputes, making the PTAB proceedings a critical component of this ongoing litigation.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation involving patent 11351357 in the Illinois Northern District Court, case number 1:23-cv-16257:

Case Caption: Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Labs.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Pre-trial Motions & Ruling (Prosecution Laches): On October 7, 2024, the Northern District of Illinois issued a significant ruling in Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Labs., No. 23-cv-16257, where the court found that the asserted patents (including 11351357) were "barred by prosecution laches based on an unreasonable and unexplained delay of over ten years in the prosecution process with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) constituting an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system." This ruling indicates a substantial pre-trial motion, likely a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, being granted in favor of the defendant, Abbott Labs. The finding of prosecution laches suggests that the case, at least regarding the claims affected by this ruling, may have been dismissed or significantly limited. Further details on the specific motion type and the exact scope of claims affected by this ruling would require accessing the full court order.

Remaining Information to be Sourced:

As of the current date, information regarding the specific complaint filing date, initial pleadings (answer, counterclaims beyond what might be inferred from the laches ruling), other pre-trial motions (transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment on other grounds), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, dismissal, or appeal is not yet explicitly available from the provided search results beyond the prosecution laches ruling. Similarly, details on any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically for patent 11351357 and their effect on the litigation remain to be identified. The ruling on prosecution laches, if it resulted in a dismissal of the entire case, would make further developments like Markman, discovery, or trial irrelevant for this specific litigation. However, without the full order, it's difficult to definitively confirm the complete outcome of the case.

The plaintiff, MIRACOR MEDICAL SA, is represented by attorneys from Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff includes:

• Todd G. Vare

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • Office Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Vare represents clients in patent litigation across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, and has experience in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

• Joshua P. Larsen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • Office Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Larsen concentrates his practice on complex civil litigation, particularly patent infringement, validity, and enforceability, and has handled over 30 patent litigation matters across multiple U.S. District Courts and served as lead counsel in over 40 Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Mark A. Hagedorn

  • Role: Lead Counsel (also likely fulfills local counsel requirements due to Chicago office)
  • Firm: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Hagedorn is an intellectual property litigator specializing in patents, trademarks, and copyrights, with experience successfully litigating claims at the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in federal courts across the country, including technologies such as cardiac marker immunoassays.

• Ronald E. Cahill

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, Massachusetts
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Cahill is a first chair IP trial attorney and co-chair of Barnes & Thornburg's national Life Sciences Practice Group, specializing in breaking down complex life sciences intellectual property issues for juries, judges, and the PTAB, and has led trial teams in patent infringement cases nationwide.

The defendants, Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC, are represented by counsel from several law firms. Identifying the specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) for each attorney without direct PACER access can be challenging, but based on general practice in patent litigation and available information, the following represents the likely counsel of record:

For Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC:

• Kirkland & Ellis LLP appears to be a primary firm for Abbott Laboratories in patent litigation. While specific attorneys for this case are not explicitly named in public snippets, Kirkland & Ellis has a history of representing Abbott in intellectual property disputes. Their offices in Chicago, IL, often handle matters in the Northern District of Illinois. The firm is well-known for its extensive patent litigation practice, representing major corporations across various technology sectors.

  • Note: A case in the District of Massachusetts in March 2025 also involved Abbott Laboratories in a patent infringement dispute, where a motion for summary judgment was denied.

• Hoyng ROKH Monégier has been identified as a long-term client for Thoratec, particularly in European patent matters. While this firm has a strong European presence, it is possible they are involved in a coordinating or "of counsel" role, or that US-based attorneys from their firm or a partner firm are handling the US litigation.

  • Note: Hoyng ROKH Monégier represented Thoratec in a dispute against Abiomed in Europe concerning heart pump technology.

• In-house Counsel for Abbott Laboratories: Abbott Laboratories has an active in-house legal department with intellectual property counsel, who would be involved in managing and overseeing the litigation.

  • Note: Abbott actively recruits for in-house IP counsel with experience in medical devices and patent litigation/PTAB oppositions.

Without direct access to the docket for case 1:23-cv-16257, a definitive and exhaustive list of all appearing attorneys, their specific roles, and their office locations is difficult to compile. The information above is based on typical representation patterns in large-scale patent litigation involving these entities.