The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived an antitrust case against Intuitive Surgical, a company that manufactures the da Vinci surgery robot, on June 25, 2026. This decision highlights the application of antitrust law to the restriction of third-party refurbishment of medical device components. The immediate effect is on companies involved in medical device refurbishment, with broader implications for antitrust law and the balance between intellectual property rights and competition. The revival of the case may influence the application of the Kodak factors in similar cases, potentially affecting companies across various industries.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute was triggered by Intuitive Surgical's practices regarding the refurbishment of its da Vinci surgery robot components. The core disagreement centered on whether these practices constituted an antitrust violation.

• Case Title: Not specified

• Court: Ninth Circuit

• Date: June 25, 2026

• Statutes Cited: Not specified

• Primary Legal Issue: Antitrust law, specifically the application of Kodak factors

• Petitioner Arguments: Surgical Instrument Service and the Federal Trade Commission argue that the lower court erred in requiring the proof of Kodak factors

• Respondent Arguments: Not specified

• Court Reasoning: Not specified

• Holding: The case was urged to be revived

• Operative Order: Not specified

• Practical Outcome: The revival of the antitrust case against Intuitive Surgical

How Does This Affect You?

Before this ruling, there was uncertainty regarding the application of antitrust laws to companies restricting third-party refurbishment of their products. The Ninth Circuit's decision creates a compliance obligation for companies to reassess their refurbishment and maintenance policies. This shift affects companies across various industries, as they must review their policies to avoid potential antitrust violations. The decision points toward significant changes in how lawyers advise clients on antitrust matters, how law students understand antitrust doctrine, and how businesses navigate refurbishment and maintenance practices.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• The revival of the antitrust case against Intuitive Surgical may influence how lawyers advise clients on refurbishment and maintenance policies, particularly in the medical device industry, to avoid potential antitrust violations.

• Lawyers handling antitrust cases may want to consider the implications of restricted third-party refurbishment on competition and consumer choice.

• The decision may lead to drafting changes in contracts related to product maintenance and refurbishment, taking into account antitrust laws.

• The ruling may reduce the risk of antitrust litigation for companies that adopt open refurbishment policies, promoting competition and consumer choice.

• The use of the Kodak factors in antitrust cases may be reevaluated in light of this decision, potentially altering the approach to similar cases.

For Law Students

• The decision provides an opportunity to examine the application of antitrust law and the Kodak factors.

• The core legal doctrine or distinction is the potential antitrust implications of restricting third-party refurbishment of products.

• The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

  • Antitrust Law

  • Intellectual Property Law

  • Business Associations

  • Regulatory Law

• The comparable cases of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992) and Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006) provide insight into the application of antitrust laws to aftermarket practices and the balance between intellectual property rights and competition.

For Businesses

• Businesses may want to consider reviewing their refurbishment and maintenance policies to take into account antitrust laws, potentially adopting more open policies to promote competition.

• Companies in the medical device industry may find it useful to assess their current practices regarding third-party refurbishment and maintenance.

• The decision may affect companies' internal documentation and filing processes related to product maintenance, requiring review to ensure compliance with antitrust regulations.

• No immediate operational risk arises for businesses without significant aftermarket components or those not restricting third-party refurbishment.

Key Takeaways

• The legal principle established: Restricting third-party refurbishment of products may constitute an antitrust violation.

• The practice consequence: Lawyers may find it useful to advise clients to review their refurbishment and maintenance policies to avoid potential antitrust violations.

• The enforcement consequence: Regulators may scrutinize companies' aftermarket practices for potential antitrust violations.

• What to watch next: Future cases or regulatory actions that further clarify the application of antitrust laws to aftermarket practices.

• General Counsels of medical device companies may want to review and potentially revise their refurbishment policies before the next regulatory audit or antitrust review.

References

1. State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, et al., 25-6268 – CourtListener.com

2. [PDF] Case: 25-1372, 08/06/2025, DktEntry: 52.1, Page 1 of 30

3. antitrust | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

4. Antitrust Supreme Court Cases - Justia Law

5. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. | Supreme Court Bulletin | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

6. Federal Trade Commission Act

7. supreme court | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: Robo-Surgery Co., FTC Urge 9th Circ. To Revive Antitrust Case