Company: ISRG
Filing Date: 2025-07-23
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001035267-25-000192
Chunk: 20

Company: INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC
Filing Date: 2025-07-23
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 20
---
 Intuitive’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. Trial in this matter commenced on January 6, 2025. On January 28, 2025, after the close of both plaintiff’s and Intuitive’s cases in chief, the Court found in Intuitive’s favor on all of SIS’s antitrust claims and stayed Intuitive’s counterclaims. On February 27, 2025, SIS filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. SIS’s brief is due July 23, 2025. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as “In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation.” A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced.With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues and denied Intuitive’s motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive’s motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrist instruments, and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive’s motion for summary judgment challenging