A federal jury in the Central District of California ordered Medtronic to pay $381.7 million to Applied Medical Resources Corporation on February 5, 2026, finding that the world’s largest medical device maker illegally monopolized the market for advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices. The Medtronic Applied Medical lawsuit produced a unanimous verdict against Medtronic under federal and California antitrust law, and Medtronic is now asking the trial judge to set the verdict aside.1Yahoo Finance. Applied Medical Prevails in Antitrust Jury Trial Against Medtronic
What Applied Medical Accused Medtronic of Doing
Applied Medical filed suit on February 14, 2023, in federal court in Santa Ana, California, alleging that Medtronic used a web of contracts to lock hospitals into buying its LigaSure vessel sealing device and shut out Applied Medical’s competing Voyant Intelligent Energy System.2CourtListener. Applied Medical Resources Corporation v. Medtronic, Inc. LigaSure sits at the center of Medtronic’s roughly 60 percent share of the advanced energy market.3Market.us. Vessel Sealing Devices Market Report
The complaint pointed to two related practices.
Sole-Source Contracts With Group Purchasing Organizations
Most U.S. hospitals buy surgical supplies through group purchasing organizations, or GPOs, which negotiate volume discounts on behalf of hundreds of member hospitals. Applied Medical alleged that Medtronic signed contracts designating itself as the sole source for advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices, so that hospitals buying a competing product outside the GPO deal faced financial penalties and other burdens.4Yahoo Finance. Medtronic Ordered to Pay $382M Even hospitals interested in trying Voyant, the company argued, were deterred by the cost of breaking their existing arrangements.
Bundled Pricing Across Product Lines
The second practice turned on Medtronic’s breadth. Because Medtronic sells a large portfolio of surgical products beyond vessel sealers, it allegedly conditioned discounts on unrelated supplies on a hospital’s continued purchase of LigaSure. Applied Medical, with a narrower product line, could not offer equivalent cross-portfolio discounts. Switching to Voyant meant risking favorable pricing on other Medtronic supplies entirely.5FTC. Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. – FTC Amicus Brief Applied Medical called these arrangements “complex contractual barriers” that restricted hospitals’ access to competing products.6Fierce Biotech. Medtronic Hit With $382M Antitrust Ruling Over Surgical Device Monopoly
The jury also found that Medtronic sold LigaSure below cost in certain instances, a form of predatory pricing aimed at competitors that could not absorb equivalent losses.7MD+DI Online. Medtronic Owes Rival $382M in Monopoly Suit
The Legal Claims
Applied Medical brought its case under four provisions:
- Sherman Act, Sections 1 and 2, covering unreasonable restraints of trade and unlawful monopolization.
- Clayton Act, Section 3, addressing exclusive dealing and tying arrangements that substantially lessen competition.
- California’s Cartwright Act, the state-law analog prohibiting anticompetitive arrangements.8Source on Healthcare. Verdict in Medtronic Highlights Problems in Misusing Monopoly Power
The Verdict
The trial before U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu ran roughly ten days. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on February 5, 2026, finding Medtronic liable under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Cartwright Act for using “exclusionary unlawful bundling and exclusive dealing practices to suppress competition in the market for advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices.”1Yahoo Finance. Applied Medical Prevails in Antitrust Jury Trial Against Medtronic It awarded Applied Medical $381,705,005 in damages.8Source on Healthcare. Verdict in Medtronic Highlights Problems in Misusing Monopoly Power
Medtronic’s Defense
Medtronic denied the allegations throughout the case. Its contracts, the company argued, were standard industry practice, did not require fixed purchase volumes, and did not explicitly ban rival products. Medtronic maintained that surgeons chose LigaSure on clinical performance.9Medical Device Network. Medtronic Ordered to Pay $382M in Anticompetitive Surgical Device Lawsuit
Treble Damages and Injunctive Relief Still on the Table
Federal antitrust law allows a court to treble a jury’s damages award, which would push the $381.7 million figure above $1.1 billion. News reports noted the court could consider increasing the award, though no such ruling had issued as of mid-2026.6Fierce Biotech. Medtronic Hit With $382M Antitrust Ruling Over Surgical Device Monopoly Available reporting does not clarify whether the $381.7 million figure represents single damages that could still be trebled or already incorporates some multiplier.
Applied Medical is also seeking an injunction that would bar Medtronic from continuing to enforce the contract provisions the jury found anticompetitive.4Yahoo Finance. Medtronic Ordered to Pay $382M If granted, that order could change how Medtronic structures its hospital and GPO contracts for vessel sealing devices going forward.
Where the Case Stands Now
Medtronic announced immediately after the verdict that it intended to appeal. Rather than heading to the Ninth Circuit, the company first filed a motion in the district court asking Judge Hsu to set aside the verdict. As of April 2026, Applied Medical had opposed the motion, arguing that Medtronic was recycling “erroneous legal arguments this court already rejected” at earlier stages of the case.10Law360. Medtronic Can’t Ax $382M Trial Loss, Applied Medical Says
No notice of appeal has appeared on the docket as of mid-2026. The case remains before Judge Hsu while post-trial motions play out. If the district court denies the motion to set aside the verdict, Medtronic can then take the case to the Ninth Circuit, and the litigation could stretch on for years.
Why the FTC Filed a Brief
An unusual feature of the case was the Federal Trade Commission’s decision to file an amicus brief in July 2023 after the court granted it leave to participate.11FTC. Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. – Amicus Brief The agency said it was not taking a position on whether Applied Medical’s specific allegations were true. It wanted to correct what it called Medtronic’s “erroneous assertions and mistaken legal points” about antitrust pleading standards.12FTC. FTC Amicus Brief in Applied Medical v. Medtronic
The FTC’s brief argued that exclusive dealing can be unlawful even without formally binding contracts, so long as the practical effect is to shut out competitors. It said plaintiffs do not need to prove a specific numerical percentage of market foreclosure at the pleading stage, and that three-year contracts are not inherently short term. On bundling, the FTC contended that requiring detailed price-and-cost data before discovery would make it “nearly impossible” to bring bundling claims, and it criticized the Ninth Circuit’s existing test as one that “rewards the defendants whose bundling harms rivals the most.” Accepting Medtronic’s legal theories, the agency warned, “could undermine the enforcement of competition laws in healthcare markets and other sectors, and have real effects on competition and patient choice.”13Mobi Health News. Medtronic Ordered to Pay Almost $382M in Applied Medical Antitrust Ruling
How This Fits Medtronic’s Antitrust History
Medtronic has faced antitrust allegations before. In Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, a Colorado surgical device maker accused Medtronic of abusing a distribution agreement to monopolize the surgical bone mill market. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the case in 2017 on procedural grounds, finding it barred by a prior lawsuit involving a related Medtronic subsidiary rather than ruling on the merits.14Justia. Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. The Applied Medical case is the first to produce a jury verdict holding Medtronic liable for antitrust violations in the device market.