Medtronic Lawsuit 2026, $382M Antitrust Verdict Over LigaSure Device Bundling—No Consumer Settlement Available
A California federal jury ordered Medtronic to pay $382 million to rival medical device manufacturer Applied Medical on February 5, 2026, finding the medtech giant violated antitrust laws by using anti-competitive bundling practices to monopolize the market for advanced bipolar surgical devices. This verdict marks one of the largest antitrust awards in the medical device industry, but it’s a business dispute between manufacturers—not a consumer class action with settlement claim forms.
What Is The Medtronic Lawsuit About?
Applied Medical filed suit against Medtronic in February 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging the company engaged in illegal bundling and exclusive dealing practices to suppress competition in the market for advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices. These surgical tools cut tissue and seal blood vessels during operations.
According to court filings, Applied Medical alleged that Medtronic engaged in exclusionary unlawful bundling and exclusive dealing practices to suppress competition for devices like Applied’s Voyant system. The jury found Medtronic violated the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the California Cartwright Act through restrictive contracts with healthcare providers.
How Did Medtronic Allegedly Violate Antitrust Law?
The jury determined Medtronic sold its LigaSure device below cost and bundled it with other products in contracts designed to make the company’s offerings more appealing to hospitals. This allegedly monopolized the market and hurt competition for Applied’s rival device Voyant.
Applied Medical claimed Medtronic used its dominant market position to create bundling agreements with hospital systems and healthcare group purchasing organizations. These contracts allegedly penalized hospitals financially if they purchased competing devices, effectively blocking Applied from selling its products.
Current Status As Of February 2026
A federal jury in California ruled that Medtronic has violated antitrust law and must pay $382 million in damages to Applied Medical Resources. The 10-day trial concluded with a unanimous jury verdict on February 5, 2026.
Medtronic announced it plans to appeal the decision. In a statement, the company said surgeons “choose Medtronic’s LigaSure device time and again because it outperforms Applied’s Voyant.” Applied Medical’s legal team indicated they may seek injunctive relief to prohibit Medtronic from enforcing the allegedly unlawful contract restrictions. Under federal law, a judge could triple the award based on the jury’s findings.
Is There A Consumer Settlement Or Claim Form?
No. This lawsuit involves two medical device manufacturers disputing business practices. There is no consumer class action settlement, no claim forms for patients or hospital customers, and no eligibility requirements for the general public to file claims.
The $382 million damages award goes to Applied Medical as compensation for lost business revenue—not to consumers who purchased or used the devices. Patients who used either LigaSure or Voyant devices during surgery are not parties to this litigation and cannot file claims for compensation.
Who Are The Parties Involved?
Plaintiff: Applied Medical Resources Corporation, a medical device manufacturer that produces the Voyant advanced bipolar vessel sealing system.
Defendant: Medtronic, Inc., one of the world’s largest medical technology companies, manufacturer of the LigaSure device.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
What This Verdict Means For The Medical Device Industry
This case demonstrates increased scrutiny of anti-competitive practices in healthcare markets. The Federal Trade Commission took an active interest in the litigation, critiquing Medtronic’s legal reasoning during proceedings.
For hospitals and healthcare systems, the verdict may lead to changes in how medical device contracts are structured. If Applied Medical succeeds in obtaining injunctive relief, Medtronic may be prohibited from using certain bundling practices that courts found violated antitrust law.
The case also highlights how dominant companies in specialized medical markets face legal consequences when their contracting practices allegedly harm competition rather than benefiting consumers through innovation and lower prices.
Common Misconceptions About The Medtronic Lawsuit
Misconception: This is a product liability case about defective devices.
Reality: This is an antitrust case about business practices and market competition, not device safety or defects.
Misconception: Consumers can file claims for settlement money.
Reality: Only Applied Medical receives damages. No consumer claim process exists.
Misconception: Patients who used LigaSure devices can sue Medtronic.
Reality: This verdict doesn’t create rights for patients unless they have separate product liability claims unrelated to this antitrust case.
What Happens Next?
Medtronic will file an appeal challenging the jury verdict. This process typically takes months or years to resolve. Applied Medical will likely seek court orders preventing Medtronic from continuing the allegedly unlawful bundling practices.
The litigation against other defendants who haven’t settled continues separately. Healthcare providers and hospital systems may review their purchasing contracts with Medtronic in light of the verdict.
Industry observers expect this case to influence how medical device manufacturers structure their sales agreements and bundling practices going forward.
FAQs
What is the Medtronic lawsuit settlement amount?
The jury awarded Applied Medical $382 million in damages. This is not a settlement—it’s a jury verdict following trial. Medtronic plans to appeal, so the final amount may change.
Can I file a claim in the Medtronic lawsuit?
No. This is a business dispute between two medical device companies. There is no consumer class action settlement or claim form for patients or the general public.
What products are involved in the Medtronic antitrust case?
The lawsuit centers on Medtronic’s LigaSure advanced bipolar device and Applied Medical’s competing Voyant device. Both are surgical instruments used to cut tissue and seal blood vessels during operations.
When was the Medtronic antitrust lawsuit filed?
Applied Medical filed the lawsuit in February 2023 in California federal court. The trial took place in January and February 2026.
Will Medtronic have to pay the $382 million?
Not immediately. Medtronic announced it will appeal the verdict. If the appeal succeeds, the judgment could be reduced or overturned. If Applied Medical prevails on appeal, the award could potentially triple under antitrust law.
Are there other Medtronic lawsuits for consumers?
Medtronic faces separate product liability lawsuits over different devices, including insulin pumps and spinal systems. Those cases involve consumer claims unrelated to this antitrust verdict about business practices.
What should hospitals do following this verdict?
Healthcare systems should review their medical device purchasing agreements with legal counsel to understand how this verdict may affect future contract terms and competitive bidding processes.
Last Updated: February 11, 2026
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the Medtronic antitrust lawsuit and is not legal advice. For specific guidance, consult a qualified attorney.
Need Help Understanding Your Legal Rights? Visit AllAboutLawyer.com for the latest updates on lawsuits affecting consumers and businesses.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah