IP Law Daily, PATENT—W.D. Tex.: 3M and former healthcare spinoff obtain dismissal of wound-therapy patent claims, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The patent owner failed to plausibly allege every limitation of the asserted claims and adequately support its secondary infringement theories but was given leave to amend.

A wound-treatment technology developer’s direct, induced, contributory, and willful patent infringement claims against 3M Company and Solventum Corporation were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations concerning several limitations of the asserted claims and the defendants’ knowledge of infringement. Although the federal district court in San Antonio, Texas, found that Meditech Development, Inc. adequately pled certain positive-pressure and tamponade limitations, deficiencies concerning other limitations meant that neither asserted patent was plausibly infringed. Meditech was granted leave to amend its allegations (Meditech Development, Inc. v. Solventum Corp., No. 5:26-cv-03581-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2026)).

Background. Meditech develops wound-treatment technology. 3M is a diversified technology company that formerly operated the healthcare business at issue, while Solventum became an independent healthcare company following 3M’s April 2024 healthcare spin-off. Meditech alleged that it discussed the asserted patents and their applicability to the accused products with 3M employees as early as 2020. It also alleged that it notified both companies of infringement in March 2026 and that they continued the accused conduct afterward.

The patents. The asserted patents concern portable regulated vacuum pumps and pressure-control equipment used in negative-pressure wound therapy, a treatment that applies suction at a wound site. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,138,216 (the ’216 patent) and 9,186,444 (the ’444 patent) include claims requiring systems capable of applying both positive and negative pressure. Meditech accused integrated systems sold under the V.A.C., Veraflo, Prevena, and AbThera therapy brands, including V.A.C. Ulta and Ulta 4 units and related tubing, dressings, pads, and other components. The accused systems allegedly use pumps, processors, sensors, leak detection, and multi-compartment tubing, while the Veraflo configuration also delivers topical wound solutions.

Direct infringement. The court explained that a patent owner need not plead infringement on an element-by-element basis but must allege facts making it plausible that the accused product satisfies every limitation of an asserted claim. Citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), it noted that the necessary level of detail depends in part on the technology's complexity. These integrated wound-therapy systems fell on the more complex end of that spectrum. The court also relied on AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 119 F.4th 27 (Fed. Cir. 2024), in explaining that factual allegations must articulate why infringement is plausible.

Meditech adequately pled the positive-pressure limitations by alleging that the accused systems used a pump to supply positive and negative pressure and that the Veraflo configuration applied positive pressure to deliver wound solution. The ’444 patent’s tamponade limitation was also sufficiently pled because Meditech alleged that vacuum between identified pads and patient tissue formed a tamponade that stopped fluid flow.

Other limitations were deficient. For the ’216 patent, Meditech alleged that the V.A.C. Ulta used a valve to adjust and release vacuum but did not explain how that valve performed the particular claimed function. For the ’444 patent, allegations that sensors monitored wound pressure and detected leaks did not show that they monitored the patient as required by the claim. Nor did Meditech adequately connect a patient-monitoring signal to the claimed increase or decrease in agent delivery. Because each asserted claim contained at least one inadequately pled limitation, the court dismissed the direct infringement claims.

Induced infringement. The induced infringement claims necessarily failed because Meditech had not adequately alleged underlying direct infringement. The court nevertheless found that allegations concerning promotional materials, manuals, training materials, clinical guidelines, videos, and technical advice plausibly alleged affirmative steps intended to encourage infringement. Citing Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018), it concluded that those allegations were sufficient as to intent and affirmative conduct. An amended complaint, however, would need to distinguish 3M's actions from Solventum's following the spin-off.

Contributory infringement. Meditech also identified tubing, pads, dressings, wound solutions, and other components allegedly constituting material parts of the patented inventions. But the complaint did not adequately allege knowledge of infringement or that the relevant components lacked substantial noninfringing uses. Citing Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (2015), the court noted that contributory infringement requires knowledge of both the patent and infringement.

The alleged 2020 discussions did not identify what accused products or patent claims were discussed or what 3M was told about infringement. Similarly, the March 2026 letter was described only generally, and Meditech did not explain how 3M’s pre-spin-off knowledge could be attributed to Solventum.

Willful infringement. The willfulness allegations failed for similar reasons. Meditech alleged continued conduct after the defendants received notice but did not provide sufficient facts showing that either company knew its conduct amounted to infringement or deliberately infringed the patents. Bare allegations of willful blindness were likewise insufficient.

The court therefore dismissed the direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement claims without prejudice and allowed Meditech to amend its complaint by September 11, 2026. It emphasized that the ruling did not resolve the ultimate merits of the infringement allegations or any disputed claim construction.

The Case is No. 5:26-cv-03581-XR.

Judge: Rodriguez, X.

Attorneys: Brian S. Seal (Saul Ewing LLP) for Meditech Development, Inc. Aaron D. Bray (Honigman LLP) for Solventum Corp.

Companies: Meditech Development, Inc.; Solventum Corp.

Cases: Patent TexasNews