Innovative Product Manufacturing Sues Siemens Healthineers and Siemens Healthcare Over syngo.via 3D Imaging Software.

The parties and the court

The case is Innovative Product Manufacturing, LLC v. Siemens Healthineers AG, No. 2:26-cv-00888 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), filed October 5, 2026. The docket shows it assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint describes Innovative Product Manufacturing (IPM) as a Pennsylvania limited liability company based in Valencia, Pennsylvania, that owns the patents by assignment. It alleges, on information and belief, that Siemens Healthineers AG is a German stock corporation and that Siemens Healthcare GmbH is a German company and its wholly owned subsidiary. The complaint says the patents came out of work by a Canadian three-dimensional visualization company.

The patents and asserted claims

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 7,965,290, titled Method, System, and Data Structure for Progressive Loading and Processing of a 3D Dataset, issued June 21, 2011; U.S. Patent 9,159,170, titled System and Method for Optimal Geometry Configuration Based on Parts Exclusion, issued October 13, 2015; and U.S. Patent 9,342,913, titled Method and System for Emulating Inverse Kinematics, issued May 17, 2016. It alleges that the accused products meet each requirement of at least method claim 1 of the '290 patent, method claim 9 of the '170 patent, and method claim 7 of the '913 patent. In the complaint's words, the '290 patent concerns progressively loading and processing data in a multilevel locking-free structure, the '170 patent concerns optimizations in rendering 3D datasets based on excluding certain parts, and the '913 patent concerns manipulating discrete portions of an animation of a 3D object.

The accused products

The accused instrumentalities are syngo.via and related syngo-branded and syngo-based medical-imaging software, workstations, and platforms. The complaint says syngo.via uses a commercial 3D graphics toolkit as the basis for its 3D rendering, and it points to the toolkit's progressive loading for the '290 patent, to features such as Anatomy Visualizer, Exclude Lobes, Cardiac Masking, and bone removal for the '170 patent, and to Movie Panel, Nudge Contour, and cardiac 4D visualization for the '913 patent. It alleges, on information and belief, that the accused products are used at hospitals and imaging centers in Texas, including in the Eastern District of Texas.

Knowledge and willfulness

The complaint alleges that a USPTO examiner identified the '290 patent on August 26, 2014 during prosecution of a patent application filed by a predecessor Siemens company, and, on information and belief, that the patent was reviewed on behalf of the medical technology business that now sits with the defendants. It alleges knowledge of all three patents at least as of the complaint and pleads willful infringement in each count.

Relief sought

IPM asks for findings of direct, induced, and contributory infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 with interest, enhanced damages up to three times, a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction. It demands a jury.

What to watch next

The docket shows returns of service, filed October 15, 2026, showing both defendants served October 8, 2026, and, on October 28, waivers of service and an entry extending time to respond. Watch for the defendants' answer or motion, including any venue or Rule 12 motion.