Federal Circuit Reinstates Medtronic Ireland’s Counterclaims in Recor Medical Renal-Denervation Dispute, Applies A.L.M. Standing Framework

On May 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. (No. 25-1998) that Medtronic Ireland retained sufficient exclusionary rights to satisfy Article III constitutional standing, even after granting an exclusive license to an affiliated entity. Applying its precedential opinion issued the same day in A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd. (No. 25-1317), the Federal Circuit reversed an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that had dismissed Medtronic Ireland’s counterclaims for lack of standing, and remanded for consideration of joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Circuit Judge Chen authored the decision.

The patents at issue—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,845,629 and 11,801,085—claim systems and methods for renal neuromodulation, a procedure that applies thermal energy to the nerves connecting to the kidneys in order to treat hypertension. Medtronic Ireland’s Symplicity Spyral renal denervation (RDN) catheter system, which uses radiofrequency energy, competes directly with Recor Medical’s ultrasound-based Paradise System. In May 2022, Recor Medical filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California seeking a determination that the Paradise System did not infringe the ’629 patent and that the asserted claims were invalid. Medtronic Ireland answered and asserted counterclaims alleging infringement of both patents.

During discovery, Medtronic Ireland produced a 2023 Exclusive License Agreement (ELA) under which Medtronic Vascular Galway Unlimited Company received an exclusive license to make, use, sell, import, and offer for sale designated “Products” covered by the patents. Recor Medical moved to dismiss the counterclaims, arguing that the ELA had transferred away all exclusionary rights from Medtronic Ireland. The district court agreed, relying on Morrow v. Microsoft Corp. to conclude that Medtronic Ireland’s retained right to sue, sublicensing veto, restrictions on assignment, and reversionary rights upon termination of the ELA were each insufficient to support constitutional standing.

The Federal Circuit first addressed whether the appeal had been rendered moot by subsequent ELA amendments and a related action that Medtronic Ireland had filed against Recor Medical. The court found the case live: the district court’s dismissal continued to influence the viability of Recor Medical’s unclean hands defense, which rested in part on the premise that Medtronic Ireland lacked the right to sue.

On the merits, the panel applied the framework set out in the same-day A.L.M. opinion and identified three retained rights that, taken together, preserved Medtronic Ireland’s exclusionary interest. First, Medtronic Ireland retained a secondary right to bring infringement suits if Medtronic Galway declined or failed to act within a reasonable time. Second, Medtronic Ireland retained royalty interests attaching to any sublicense Medtronic Galway might grant. Third, and most decisively for the panel, Medtronic Ireland held veto authority over any sublicense Medtronic Galway sought to issue. That veto kept Medtronic Galway from unilaterally authorizing an accused infringer such as Recor Medical to practice the patents, materially distinguishing the case from Morrow, where the licensee’s royalty-free sublicensing power had rendered the plaintiff’s right to sue illusory. The opinion also pointed to allocation-of-settlement-proceeds provisions in the ELA as evidence that Medtronic Ireland retained meaningful authority to resolve litigation it initiated.

The court further noted that the ELA’s grant to Medtronic Galway was not unlimited. The license covered only specifically designated “Products”; Medtronic Ireland retained rights over undesignated products and over unfinished medical devices, reinforcing that it had not transferred away all of its exclusionary interests.

The Federal Circuit accordingly held that Medtronic Ireland retained an exclusionary right sufficient for Article III standing and remanded for the district court to address joinder under Rule 19—an issue the court had not previously reached. For global medical-device and pharmaceutical companies that route intellectual property through Irish, Singaporean, or other affiliated licensing entities for tax and operational reasons, the decision provides concrete reassurance: same-group licensing structures do not automatically defeat the patent owner’s standing to enforce, provided that sublicensing controls, royalty retention, and litigation rights are drafted to keep the right to sue from becoming illusory.