Angiodynamics Inc v. Endovascular Engineering Inc

Case Background: Established Med-Tech Firm Sues Startup Over Clot Removal Tech

This patent infringement lawsuit represents a competitive battle in the lucrative medical device market for treating vascular diseases. The plaintiff, AngioDynamics Inc., is a publicly traded, established medical technology company that designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of devices for vascular access, peripheral vascular disease, and oncology. Founded in 1988, AngioDynamics has a significant product portfolio in thrombus management, including its AlphaVac and AngioVac mechanical thrombectomy systems designed for removing clots from the vasculature. The defendant, Endovascular Engineering Inc. (E2), is a venture-backed startup founded in 2019, focused on developing next-generation technologies for clot removal, specifically targeting venous thromboembolism. E2 recently raised $80 million in Series C financing to advance its thrombectomy platform.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, centers on Endovascular Engineering’s Viper and Cobra catheter systems. These devices are part of E2's Hēlo™ PE Thrombectomy System, a minimally invasive platform designed to remove blood clots from vessels using a catheter that combines a self-expanding funnel with dual-action technology for agitating and aspirating the clot. AngioDynamics alleges these systems infringe on three of its U.S. patents. While the specific claims are not detailed in the available information, the patents generally relate to vascular treatment technologies: U.S. Patent No. 11,589,880 pertains to a "Guidewire loading and locking handle," U.S. Patent No. 8,613,717 covers an "Apparatus for treating a blood vessel," and U.S. Patent No. 12,496,077 is for a "Methods of removing materials from a body." This litigation places a well-established incumbent against a well-funded newcomer in the high-stakes field of endovascular intervention.

The case is procedurally in its initial stages before The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, a highly experienced patent judge now sitting on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit who continues to hear Delaware cases by designation. The District of Delaware is a premier venue for patent litigation, known for its judicial expertise in complex patent law and the fact that a large number of U.S. corporations are incorporated there. Following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which restricted patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where it has a regular place of business and has committed infringement, Delaware's caseload has remained high. The assignment to Judge Stark, who has presided over more than 60 patent trials, signals that the case will be managed by a jurist with deep and influential experience, potentially impacting not only the parties involved but also setting precedents in medical device patent litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 14, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between AngioDynamics and Endovascular Engineering is in its nascent stages. The key developments to date have been procedural, establishing the formal legal dispute and the parties' legal representation.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed
  AngioDynamics Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Endovascular Engineering Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.), docketed as Case No. 1:26-cv-00469. The complaint alleges that Endovascular's Viper and Cobra catheters, part of the Hēlo Thrombectomy System, infringe upon three U.S. patents: Nos. 11,589,880, 8,613,717, and 12,496,077. AngioDynamics claims the accused products incorporate its proprietary "self-expanding funnel technology" for removing blood clots. The plaintiff is seeking both monetary damages, including lost profits, and equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction to halt the alleged infringement.

• 2026-04-23: Plaintiff's Counsel Appears
  Contemporaneous with the complaint, attorneys from Connolly Gallagher LLP, including Arthur G. Connolly III, filed notices of appearance as local counsel for AngioDynamics.

• 2026-05-12: Defendant's Counsel Appears
  Counsel for Endovascular Engineering made their first appearance. The team includes lead counsel Stephen J. Farrell and Lewis C. Farrell from Farrell & Reilley LLP (New York) and local Delaware counsel Daniel M. O'Brien of Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Current Posture and Next Steps:

The case is currently in the initial pleadings stage. Endovascular Engineering's answer to the complaint, or any responsive motion (such as a motion to dismiss), has not yet been filed. Following the appearance of its counsel on May 12, the deadline for this response is imminent, though parties in such complex litigation often agree to a brief extension.

There are no indications of any other significant legal events:

• Pleadings: Endovascular's answer and any potential counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability of the asserted patents are the next anticipated filings.
• Motions: No substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay the case have been filed.
• PTAB Proceedings: A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Endovascular Engineering challenging the validity of the three patents-in-suit. Such filings are a common defensive strategy but may occur later in the litigation timeline.
• Discovery & Trial: The case has not progressed to claim construction (Markman hearings), discovery, or trial.

The litigation is active and open, with the next key development expected to be the defendant's formal response to the infringement allegations.

Counsel for Plaintiff AngioDynamics Inc.

Representation for the plaintiff, AngioDynamics Inc., was entered concurrently with the filing of the complaint on April 23, 2026. The legal team is from the Wilmington, Delaware, office of Connolly Gallagher LLP, a firm frequently retained as local counsel in Delaware's busy federal court.

The attorneys for AngioDynamics are:

• Arthur G. "Chip" Connolly III (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: A founding partner of the firm, Connolly is a veteran Delaware litigator regularly involved in patent, corporate, and commercial litigation and has been recognized by Chambers USA and IAM Patent 1000.

• Ryan P. Newell (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: A former partner at the firm with two decades of experience in Delaware's state and federal courts, including in intellectual property matters.

• Mary I. Akhimien (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: An attorney at the firm whose practice includes litigation; she has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers for her work.

This team is serving as local counsel in the District of Delaware. It is common practice for a plaintiff to also retain a lead counsel from a different firm with specialized expertise in the specific technology at issue, though no such firm or attorneys have yet appeared on the docket.

Counsel for Defendant Endovascular Engineering Inc. Appears

(2026-05-14) Counsel for the defendant, Endovascular Engineering Inc., filed a notice of appearance on the court docket on May 12, 2026. The company has assembled a defense team comprising attorneys from a national intellectual property firm and a well-regarded Delaware-based firm known for its expertise in the state's district court.

The legal team representing Endovascular Engineering includes:

From Farrell & Reilley LLP (New York, NY):

• Stephen J. Farrell (Lead Counsel): A seasoned patent litigator, Farrell's practice focuses on complex intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology and life sciences sectors. He has previously represented clients in high-stakes patent litigation involving medical devices.
• Lewis C. Farrell (Of Counsel): Specializing in patent law, Lewis Farrell has experience in both patent prosecution and litigation, bringing a comprehensive perspective to the defense team.

From Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE):

• Daniel M. O'Brien (Local Counsel): O'Brien is a director at Ashby & Geddes, a firm frequently retained as Delaware counsel in major patent cases due to its deep familiarity with local court procedures and judges. His practice concentrates on intellectual property and other complex commercial litigation in Delaware's federal and state courts. Ashby & Geddes is recognized as a top-tier firm for IP litigation in Delaware.

The selection of this legal team indicates Endovascular Engineering's strategy to combine specialized patent litigation expertise with extensive experience in the specific venue of the District of Delaware. The appearance of counsel is a standard early step in the litigation, and their first major action will likely be filing an answer to AngioDynamics' complaint or a motion to dismiss the case.