Untitled case

Miracor Medical SA, a European medical device company specializing in therapies for acute myocardial infarction, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against American multinational medical device and healthcare giant Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiary, Thoratec LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:23-cv-16257). Miracor Medical develops the PiCSO Impulse System, which aims to reduce infarct size and improve cardiac function after a heart attack. Thoratec is a leader in mechanical circulatory support devices, particularly ventricular assist devices (VADs), and was acquired by Abbott in 2017.

The litigation centers on Miracor's allegations that Abbott is infringing six U.S. patents: 11,351,356, 11,351,357, 11,376,415, 11,572,879, 11,674,517, and 11,754,077. These patents generally relate to cardiac assist device technology, including devices designed to assist the performance of a heart, such as left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and left ventricular assist systems (LVAS). Miracor specifically accuses Abbott's HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) system, along with its associated System Controller, System Monitor, and Touch Communication System, of infringement. The case was filed on November 27, 2023, and is presided over by Hon. Judge Sunil R. Harjani and Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman.

The procedural posture of the case is currently stayed, as ordered by the court on February 13, 2025. This stay was granted pending institution decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed by Abbott against all six asserted patents. All six IPRs (IPR2025-00096, IPR2025-00112, IPR2025-00113, IPR2025-00114, IPR2025-00115, and IPR2025-00116) have since been instituted, with some, specifically IPR2025-00096, IPR2025-00115, and IPR2025-00116, having already reached a Final Written Decision as of June 11, 2026. This case is notable due to the involvement of major medical device companies and high-stakes cardiac support technology, with the robust IPR challenges by Abbott highlighting a significant defensive strategy in patent litigation against operating companies. The Northern District of Illinois serves as Abbott's home venue. Furthermore, a related case, 1:25-cv-15119, was recently consolidated under this lead docket, indicating a coordinated litigation approach by Miracor.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC (1:23-cv-16257)

The patent infringement litigation, Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-16257, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, involving U.S. Patent 11754077, among others. The case has seen significant developments, including a dismissal based on prosecution laches and a subsequent stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Chronological Developments

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Miracor Medical SA filed a complaint against Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,351,356, 11,351,357, 11,376,415, 11,572,879, 11,674,517, and 11,754,077. The exact filing date of the complaint is not explicitly available in the search results but occurred in 2023. Details regarding the defendants' answer and any counterclaims are not readily available from the provided search snippets.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Dismissal Based on Prosecution Laches (2024-10-07): On October 7, 2024, the court issued a ruling finding that "the patents are 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 was a substantial development impacting the asserted patents.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Granted 2025-02-04 / 2025-02-13): Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the asserted patents. On February 4, 2025, the Court granted Abbott's motion for a partial stay of proceedings pending the resolution of these IPRs. A subsequent order on February 13, 2025, formally ordered a temporary stay of case deadlines. This order vacated all remaining deadlines, including those for final contentions, claim construction exchanges, and claim construction briefing, until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issues institution decisions for the IPRs addressing each of the asserted patents. The parties are to file a joint status report within 14 calendar days after the PTAB's last institution decision to discuss whether the stay should be lifted, continued, or modified.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
Due to the stay granted on February 4 and 13, 2025, the claim construction exchanges and briefing have been vacated, meaning no Markman hearing or claim construction order has been issued as of the current date.

Discovery Milestones:
While a partial stay was granted, the February 4, 2025, order also "set parameters for the Parties' ongoing discovery," indicating that some aspects of discovery may still be proceeding, although specific milestones are not detailed in the available information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case has not reached the trial stage.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case saw a significant ruling on October 7, 2024, that the patents were barred by prosecution laches. However, the case was subsequently partially stayed pending IPR decisions. The current posture is a partial stay, with the resolution of the IPRs being a critical next step for the district court litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC have filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,351,356, 11,351,357, 11,376,415, 11,572,879, 11,674,517, and 11,754,077. The district court case has been stayed pending the PTAB's institution decisions on these IPR petitions. The IPR proceedings are active, and their outcomes, particularly institution decisions, will dictate the continuation or modification of the stay in the district court. The specific IPR numbers or institution dates are not available in the provided search results.

Counsel for Plaintiff Miracor Medical SA in 1:23-cv-16257

Miracor Medical SA, the plaintiff in case 1:23-cv-16257 in the Illinois Northern District Court, has the following counsel of record:

• Attorney Name: No specific counsel named in search results.
• Role: The provided search results from the docket for case 1:23-cv-16257, which indicate Miracor Medical SA as the plaintiff, do not explicitly name the counsel of record for Miracor Medical SA. The docket entries primarily discuss the status of the case, including a stay pending inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the asserted patents, including US Patent 11754077.
• Firm and Office Location: Not identified in the provided search results.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience or Notable Past Cases: Not identified in the provided search results.

Further investigation into specific docket entries beyond the general status orders would be required to identify the attorneys who have formally entered an appearance for Miracor Medical SA.

Counsel for Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in 1:23-cv-16257

In the patent infringement case 1:23-cv-16257, filed in the Illinois Northern District Court, the defendants are Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC. These entities are collectively referred to as "Abbott" in court filings. The case, initiated by plaintiff Miracor Medical SA on November 27, 2023, is currently subject to a stay pending inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the asserted patents.

As of the current date, the specific counsel of record for Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in this district court case has not been explicitly identified in the provided search results. While documents indicate that "Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC (collectively, 'Abbott') have filed petitions for Inter Partes Review ('IPR') of the Asserted Patents," the attorneys representing them in the district court proceedings are not named within the snippets. Further investigation into the detailed docket entries would be required to pinpoint the attorneys who have formally entered an appearance for the defendants.