Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Miracor Medical SA

Abbott Laboratories Challenges Miracor Medical's Heart Assist Device Patent at PTAB Amidst Infringement Litigation

Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiary Thoratec LLC have successfully initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Miracor Medical SA, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517. This IPR (IPR2025-00115) is part of a broader dispute stemming from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Miracor against Abbott in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-16257). The district court case, initiated on November 27, 2023, alleges infringement of six patents, including the '517 patent, by Abbott's HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) system. The district court proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of these IPRs.

Abbott Laboratories, a global healthcare and medical device multinational based in Illinois, is a major player in diagnostics, medical devices, nutritionals, and branded generic medicines. Its subsidiary, Thoratec LLC, acquired through St. Jude Medical, specializes in mechanical circulatory support devices, prominently including ventricular assist devices (VADs) like the HeartMate 3. Miracor Medical SA, a Belgian medical device company, focuses on developing therapeutic devices for impaired cardiac function, notably its PiCSO (Pressure-controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion) Impulse System, designed to improve heart attack patient outcomes by enhancing myocardial blood flow.

The patent at issue, US11674517B2, is titled "Device to assist the performance of a heart". It describes a heart assist device, typically a ventricular assist device (VAD) or a left ventricular assist system (LVAS), that features a fluid-driven rotary pump integrated into a heart ventricle catheter to improve blood circulation. The device utilizes magnetic coupling to drive a rotor, with an external control unit regulating its operation. This technology is central to Miracor's claims that Abbott's HeartMate 3 LVAD system infringes its intellectual property.

The IPR, IPR2025-00115, was filed with the PTAB, an administrative body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tasked with reviewing the patentability of claims in issued patents. The case was instituted and a Final Written Decision was issued on June 11, 2026, by a panel of Administrative Patent Judges including James A. Tartal. While the decision has been rendered, the specific outcome regarding the patentability of the challenged claims for IPR2025-00115 is not yet publicly detailed in the immediately available search results. This case is notable as it involves significant players in the cardiovascular medical device market, particularly the critical technology of LVADs for heart failure patients. The outcome of this IPR and related proceedings could have substantial implications for the competitive landscape of mechanical circulatory support devices.

Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories et al. (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:23-cv-16257) and Parallel IPR (IPR2025-00115)

This patent dispute involves a district court litigation initiated by Miracor Medical SA against Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517, among others. In response, Abbott and Thoratec filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. District Court Litigation Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• November 27, 2023: Miracor Medical SA filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-16257. Miracor Medical SA, a Belgian medical device technology firm, alleged that Abbott was infringing six of its patents related to "a device to assist the performance of a heart," including U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517. The lawsuit claimed Abbott knowingly violated patent law with its HeartMate 3 LVAD blood pump and corresponding HeartMate 3 System Controller.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding Filing:

• January 7, 2025: Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00115) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517, which is owned by Miracor Medical SA. This IPR was one of several filed by Abbott challenging the patents asserted by Miracor in the district court litigation.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (District Court) & IPR Institution:

• February 4, 2025: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Abbott's motion for a partial stay of proceedings in the infringement lawsuit (1:23-cv-16257).
• February 13, 2025: An order was issued formally staying further proceedings and vacating certain deadlines, such as final contentions and claim construction exchanges, until the PTAB issued institution decisions for the IPRs filed by Abbott concerning the asserted patents, including US11674517.
• Status: Instituted (Date not specifically found but confirmed by prompt): The IPR petition (IPR2025-00115) was instituted by the PTAB. While the exact institution date for IPR2025-00115 is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the case status indicates it proceeded to trial. For a related IPR (IPR2025-00116) involving the same parties and a related patent, the institution date was June 11, 2025, suggesting a similar timeframe for IPR2025-00115.

4. PTAB Final Written Decision (Outcome of IPR):

• June 11, 2026: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00115, concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517. The specific details of the Board's findings (i.e., whether the challenged claims were found unpatentable or patentable) are not immediately available in the provided search snippets, but the issuance of the FWD marks the conclusion of the IPR trial.

5. Final Disposition/Present Posture:

• IPR2025-00115: The IPR has concluded with a Final Written Decision issued on June 11, 2026.
• District Court Litigation (1:23-cv-16257): The district court case remains under a partial stay. Following the PTAB's Final Written Decision, the parties are expected to meet and confer to discuss the status of the stay, including whether it should be lifted, continued, or modified, and propose new deadlines. The outcome of the IPR's Final Written Decision will likely have a significant impact on the ongoing district court litigation, potentially leading to the dismissal of claims found unpatentable or influencing settlement negotiations.

Counsel of Record for Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in IPR2025-00115

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00115, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517, the following attorneys have been identified as representing the petitioner(s), Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC:

• Saranya Raghavan

  • Role: Litigation Attorney (likely lead or significant counsel)
  • Firm: [Further search required to confirm current firm for this case, but her declaration indicates she represents Abbott Laboratories. Will need to verify her firm and office location, and specific role within the firm for this case.]
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Raghavan's declaration in support of her motion for pro hac vice admission in IPR2025-00115 states she is a litigation attorney involved in multiple patent infringement cases in federal district courts, with experience in various aspects of such matters, including trials and claim construction hearings. She has substantial familiarity with the involved patent, prior art, and issues in this proceeding, due to her involvement in a related district court litigation, Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories et al., Case No. 1-23cv-16257 (Northern District of Illinois), where she represents Abbott Laboratories.

• Scott M. Border

  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP (Firm listed in a related IPR for Petitioner Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC)
  • Relevant Experience: While specifically listed for IPR2025-00116, Winston & Strawn LLP, and by extension, Scott M. Border, are associated with Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC as petitioners in a closely related IPR. Winston & Strawn LLP is known for its intellectual property litigation practice. Further specific details about Mr. Border's individual experience for this case would require deeper firm profile review.

Note on firm and office location for Saranya Raghavan: While her declaration confirms her representation of Abbott Laboratories and membership in the Illinois Bar, the specific firm and its office location were not explicitly stated within the publicly available excerpts of the IPR2025-00115 docket during the search. Further investigation would be needed to definitively identify her firm for this case.

Note on role and experience for Scott M. Border: His listing under "Attorney" for the Petitioner (Abbott Laboratories, Thoratec LLC) in the related IPR2025-00116 suggests a significant role, but specific details regarding his individual experience directly tied to this IPR were not immediately available beyond his association with Winston & Strawn LLP.

No information indicating sealed filings or counsel not yet appearing was found during the search.## Counsel of Record for Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in IPR2025-00115

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00115, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517, the following attorneys have been identified as representing the petitioner(s), Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC:

• Saranya Raghavan

  • Role: Attorney (role in relation to lead counsel not specified, but has filed for pro hac vice admission)
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case. Her declaration indicates she is a member in good standing of the State Bar of Illinois.
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Raghavan's declaration in support of her motion for pro hac vice admission in IPR2025-00115 states she is a litigation attorney involved in multiple patent infringement cases in federal district courts. She has experience in various aspects of patent infringement matters, including trials and claim construction hearings. She represents Abbott Laboratories in a related district court litigation, Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories et al., Case No. 1-23cv-16257 (Northern District of Illinois), and has obtained substantial familiarity with the patents, prior art, and issues raised in this IPR proceeding.

• Scott M. Border

  • Role: Attorney (likely lead or significant counsel for Petitioner)
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL (This firm is listed as representing Petitioner in a closely related IPR, IPR2025-00116, involving Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC against Miracor Medical SA)
  • Relevant Experience: Scott M. Border is associated with Winston & Strawn LLP, a firm with a notable intellectual property litigation practice that has represented Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC as petitioners in a related IPR. His firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, is known for its extensive experience in PTAB proceedings, including inter partes review.

No indication of sealed filings or counsel not yet appearing was found in the provided search results.

Miracor Medical SA, the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00115, is represented by the following counsel:

• Joshua P. Larsen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case. However, it is common for attorneys in IPRs to be associated with larger firms.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Note: As a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 62,761), he practices before the USPTO.

• Todd G. Vare

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this case.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Note: He is a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney who was previously recognized pro hac vice in another Board proceeding, IPR2024-00695.

The search results do not explicitly state the law firms or office locations for either attorney in relation to this specific IPR. Additional searches would be needed to identify this information definitively. The existing results primarily identify their roles within the IPR proceeding.