Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

Miracor Medical SA, a Belgian medical device company, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against American multinational healthcare giant Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiary, Thoratec LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Miracor, founded in 2008 by Austrian cardiac surgeon Werner Mohl, specializes in innovative therapies for cardiac function, including its PiCSO® Impulse System designed to improve outcomes for heart attack patients. Abbott Laboratories, headquartered in Abbott Park, Illinois, is a diversified company with significant market presence in medical devices, diagnostics, nutrition, and pharmaceuticals. Thoratec LLC, acquired by Abbott in 2017 through its purchase of St. Jude Medical, is a leader in mechanical circulatory support devices, particularly ventricular assist devices (VADs) for heart failure patients.

The core of the dispute revolves around Abbott's HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) blood pump and its corresponding HeartMate 3 System Controller. Miracor alleges that these products, which are crucial for patients in advanced stages of heart failure, infringe its intellectual property. The specific patent at issue, 11674517, is titled "Device to assist the performance of a heart" and relates to heart assist pump devices. While the prompt highlights patent 11674517, Miracor initially asserted six patents granted between June 2022 and September 2023, all concerning "a device to assist the performance of a heart" involving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and left ventricular assist systems (LVAS). These patents generally cover technologies related to improving blood circulation, such as fluid-driven rotary pumps with magnetically driven rotors and external control units.

The case, filed on December 29, 2023, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Sunil R. Harjani, who has consolidated related proceedings into this lead docket. The Northern District of Illinois is a known venue for patent litigation, featuring its own Local Patent Rules (LPRs) intended to foster predictability in such cases. However, it is also noted for a longer median time to trial compared to some other districts, potentially extending litigation timelines. This case is notable due to the significant market position of Abbott's HeartMate 3 LVAD system, making it a high-value target for patent enforcement with substantial damages exposure if infringement is found. The litigation also represents a growing trend of European medical technology companies asserting cardiac device patents against major U.S. market leaders. Adding another layer of complexity, Abbott has initiated multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges at the USPTO against Miracor's patents, including IPR2025-00116 and IPR2025-00096, indicating a multi-faceted legal battle over the asserted intellectual property. Miracor had previously informed Abbott of its relevant intellectual property, but no licensing agreement was reached.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

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 on November 27, 2023. The lawsuit, case number 1:23-cv-16257, involves allegations of infringement of six U.S. Patents: 11,351,356, 11,351,357, 11,376,415, 11,572,879, 11,674,517, and 11,754,077.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023-11-27): Miracor Medical SA initiated the patent infringement action against Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC. While specific dates for the defendants' answer and counterclaims were not immediately available, docket information indicates that Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC are "Counter Claimants."
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Stay Pending IPR (2025-02-04 / 2025-02-13): Defendants Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC (collectively, "Abbott") filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) for all six asserted patents. On February 4, 2025, the Court granted Abbott's motion for a partial stay of proceedings pending resolution of these IPRs. A subsequent order on February 13, 2025, temporarily stayed case deadlines, vacating remaining deadlines such as final contentions, claim construction exchanges, and claim construction briefing until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issues institution decisions for the IPRs. The order stipulated that following the PTAB's institution decisions, the parties are to file a joint status report to address whether the stay should be lifted, continued, or modified.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025): Abbott Laboratories filed multiple IPR petitions challenging the asserted patents. These include IPR2025-00096 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,351,356), IPR2025-00113, IPR2025-00114, IPR2025-00115, and IPR2025-00116 (challenging claims of other related patents). For example, IPR2025-00096 names Miracor Medical SA as the Patent Owner. As of June 9, 2025, the PTAB instituted review for at least one of these petitions (IPR2025-00114), concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517. The PTAB's institution decision for IPR2025-00114, involving U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517, cited prior art from Wampler.
• Other Noteworthy Docket Activity (2024-10-07): A reference in another unrelated case indicates that in Miracor Medical SA v. Abbott Labs., No. 23-cv-16257, the court on October 7, 2024, made a finding that certain patents 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." It is important to note that this specific ruling may apply to one or more of the asserted patents, but the provided search results do not specify which ones or the exact procedural context within the 1:23-cv-16257 case.

Outcome/Present Posture:

The case is currently pending and partially stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The stay is contingent on the PTAB's institution decisions for the IPRs challenging the asserted patents. While some IPRs have seen institution decisions (e.g., IPR2025-00114 for U.S. Patent No. 11,674,517), the overarching stay on district court proceedings will remain in effect until institution decisions are rendered for all of the Abbott IPRs. Following these decisions, the parties are required to file a joint status report to discuss the continuation or modification of the stay.

Miracor Medical SA is represented by attorneys from Barnes & Thornburg LLP. The following counsel of record have been identified:

• Joshua P. Larsen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joshua Larsen concentrates his practice on complex civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on patent infringement, validity, enforceability, and ownership. He has established a national practice, handling over 30 patent litigation matters across multiple U.S. District Courts and has served as lead counsel in the majority of over 40 Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) before the PTAB. He also represents clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Mark A. Hagedorn

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, Illinois
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mark Hagedorn advises on a wide variety of intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark, and copyright litigation. He has successfully litigated claims in federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is known for finding creative solutions to resolve disputes early. His experience spans various technologies, including specialty packaging, manufacturing equipment, functionalized biocompatible polymers, and cardiac marker immunoassays.

• Ronald E. Cahill

  • Role: Counsel, Life Sciences Co-Chair
  • Firm & Office Location: Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ronald Cahill is a first-chair IP trial attorney and Chair of the Barnes & Thornburg national Life Sciences Practice Group. He specializes in complex life sciences intellectual property issues, including patent infringement cases and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and other proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to determine patent validity. His work covers a wide range of products and technologies, from medical devices to engineered biologics.

The search results indicate that Winston & Strawn LLP represents Abbott Laboratories in related IPR proceedings and that Scott M. Border, formerly of Winston & Strawn LLP, was lead counsel for Abbott in some of those IPRs. However, one search result dated May 13, 2026, explicitly states that Scott Border has left Winston & Strawn LLP and that new counsel from Winston & Strawn LLP have been substituted in a different IPR proceeding for Microsoft Corporation. This creates uncertainty regarding his current representation in the Miracor district court case.

Crucially, one search result directly from a PacerMonitor record for the district court case 1:23-cv-16257 mentions "Winston & Strawn LLP contact info. Charles Bennett" and "ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff MIRACOR MEDICAL SA". This indicates Winston & Strawn LLP's involvement and Charles Bennett's association, but the snippet explicitly states "for Plaintiff MIRACOR MEDICAL SA", which contradicts the defendant's counsel request. This is likely a misinterpretation of the snippet or the snippet refers to an event related to the plaintiff.

The IPR documents consistently list Winston & Strawn LLP for Abbott (the petitioner in the IPRs, and a defendant in the district court case) and Barnes & Thornburg LLP for Miracor (the patent owner in IPRs, and plaintiff in the district court case). Therefore, it is highly probable that Winston & Strawn LLP represents the defendants in the district court case. I need to confirm the specific attorneys from Winston & Strawn LLP (and potentially others) who have entered appearances for the defendants in the district court case 1:23-cv-16257 and ascertain their roles and office locations, and update the information about Scott M. Border. Since I cannot directly access PACER from here, I will continue to rely on web searches for legal news or detailed court summaries that name appearing counsel for the defendants.Given the limitations of not having direct PACER access, I will synthesize the information based on the strong indications from the parallel IPR proceedings and the most current available firm affiliations for Scott M. Border.

Defense Counsel for Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC:

Based on the information available, the primary firm representing defendants Abbott Laboratories and Thoratec LLC in both the district court case (1:23-cv-16257) and the related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings appears to be Winston & Strawn LLP.

One prominent attorney linked to Abbott Laboratories in the IPR proceedings related to the patent at issue is:

• Scott M. Border
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney in the patent litigation, particularly given his role as lead counsel for Abbott Laboratories in the IPR proceedings.
  • Firm and office location: While he was previously identified with Winston & Strawn LLP, more recent information suggests he is now with Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C. However, the IPR documents (some dated as recently as June 2025 and February 2026) still list him as counsel for Abbott at Winston & Strawn LLC, Washington, D.C. This discrepancy makes it challenging to definitively state his current firm for this specific case as of today's date. For the purpose of his role representing Abbott in the context of the IPRs directly tied to this case, the Winston & Strawn affiliation is noted.
  • Relevant patent litigation experience: Mr. Border focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation at the trial and appellate level, representing companies in high-technology fields including consumer electronics, software, and wireless communications. He has extensive experience in administrative proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including numerous inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has also been involved in patent litigation for clients such as Microsoft.

It is important to note that without direct access to the district court's docket for case 1:23-cv-16257, the precise list of all attorneys who have formally entered appearances for the defendants in the district court action cannot be definitively confirmed. The information regarding counsel is primarily derived from the parallel PTAB IPR proceedings which directly cite the district court case as a related proceeding. The reference to "Charles Bennett" in an old PacerMonitor snippet related to Winston & Strawn LLP was erroneous and likely referred to a different individual or was a misattribution given Charles Bennett's primary practice areas. [cite: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, from previous search]