MR Access Sues Philips in Texas, Accusing MultiTransmit 3T MRI Systems of Infringing Two Patents.

The complaint

The case is MR Access Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. 2:26-cv-00881 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 2, 2026 against Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V., both Dutch companies. MR Access, a Delaware corporation, is represented by Desmarais LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC. The complaint says MR Access was founded by MRI scientists, engineers, and radiologists to expand access to MRI and that it is the exclusive licensee of all substantial rights in the asserted patents, including the right to sue. MR Access filed two other suits the same day in the District of Delaware, one against GE HealthCare, No. 1:26-cv-01277, asserting these two patents and a third, and one against Siemens Healthineers AG, No. 1:26-cv-01278.

The complaint accuses Philips 3T MRI systems, naming the MR 7700 3T, Ingenia Elition 3.0T, Ingenia Elition X, Ingenia 3.0T, Achieva 3T TX, and Titanion MR 3.0T, with compatible RF coils including the Dual tuned head coil, Smart Fit Knee coil, Flex coil C-140, Flex coil Na-140, and dStream coils. The complaint ties the accused systems together through MultiTransmit, Philips's parallel RF transmission technology. The complaint alleges that Philips launched MultiTransmit for 3.0T imaging on the Achieva 3.0T TX in or around 2008 and MultiTransmit 4D on the Ingenia 3T in or around 2011, and it quotes Philips materials describing MultiTransmit RF technology as "standard on all Philips 3T MRI scanners."

The charted claims

U.S. Patent 6,969,992, Parallel Transceiver for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance System, issued November 29, 2005. Claim 16 covers a method of selecting an imaging criteria, configuring a multi-channel transceiver for excitation based on it, with each channel coupled to one of the current elements of a multi-element radio frequency magnetic resonance coil, delivering excitation to the coil, detecting received signals as a function of the excitation, evaluating them as a function of the imaging criteria, and adjusting a selected parameter of at least one channel, with each channel controllable independent of the others.

U.S. Patent RE47,026, High Field Magnetic Resonance, reissued September 4, 2018. Claim 11 covers a system with an RF transmit coil having multiple current elements, a multichannel transmitter whose channels are each configured for independent selection of at least one of frequency, phase, magnitude, and time, and a processor that controls the current in each element and performs a non-linear algorithm that implements a non-linear relationship between flip angle and magnetic resonance signal intensity to shim the RF transmit coil, with a penalty function that returns a value describing at least a phase and a magnitude for each current element.

How the complaint maps the claims

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of each patent and charts one claim of each element by element in its body, claim 16 of the '992 patent and claim 11 of the '026 patent, citing Philips materials on MultiTransmit and other exhibits for each element. For claim 16 of the '992 patent:

• Selecting an imaging criteria: Philips statements that patient-adaptive RF shimming ensures optimum RF shimming for each patient and that optimum RF shimming "precisely realizes the desired flip angle distribution within each patient."
• Configuring a multi-channel transceiver with channels coupled to coil elements: Philips materials describing MultiTransmit as using two independent RF sources at 3.0T, and an exhibit stating that imaging took place on an Ingenia 3T scanner that "has a 2-channel transmit system with independent RF control."
• Detecting and evaluating received signals: mapping the B1 field produced by each RF source and an in-vivo calibration that determines the shim parameters.
• Adjusting a channel parameter independently: per-patient RF shim coefficients applied to independent RF sources connected to the modes of the integrated body coil.

For claim 11 of the '026 patent, the complaint alleges on information and belief that the accused systems use algorithmic optimization to set phase and magnitude for individual coil elements while penalizing parameters such as high specific absorption rate (SAR). It cites a Philips researcher's statement that additional degrees of freedom require "non-linear inversion techniques," discussion of RF shimming as a "non-linear optimization problem," and Philips statements that MultiTransmit enables RF shimming "while also minimizing local SAR." The complaint's chart paraphrases the last element as a penalty function returning "a phase and a magnitude" for each current element; the claim reads "at least a phase and a magnitude."

Knowledge and willfulness

The complaint alleges that Philips learned of the patents through its own patent prosecution and knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its products practiced them. It says the patents and their published applications were cited "either by Defendants or by an examiner" during the prosecution of Philips patent applications. It says a March 31, 2009 USPTO office action rejected claims in a Philips application, published as US 2008/0265889, as anticipated by the '992 patent, and that Philips then abandoned the application; that the '992 patent is cited in other Philips patent documents, including in the prosecution of U.S. Patent 9,535,142, where it was referenced as "pertinent to applicant's disclosure"; and that the published application that became the '026 patent was cited in the prosecution of Philips's U.S. Patent 7,755,357. It also alleges, on information and belief, that Philips has known of the patents since at least the launch of each accused product and that members of Philips's Executive Committee are familiar with MR Access's technology and intellectual property portfolio, and it points to the inventors' standing in the field, including that first-named inventor J. Thomas Vaughan was a lead engineer for the "first 4 tesla MR system with Philips Forschungslabor Hamburg," delivered to the University of Alabama at Birmingham in 1990. The complaint does not allege a pre-suit notice letter. Each count pleads willful infringement.

Theories and venue

Each count alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and (f), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, induced infringement under 271(b) through Philips documentation, manuals, training, and marketing materials, and contributory infringement under 271(c). Count I alleges that Philips infringed the '992 patent "during the term of the '992 Patent" and that the patent was valid and enforceable during the period relevant to the action; Count II alleges that infringement of the '026 patent continues. The complaint says MR Access has complied with 35 U.S.C. 287.

Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3), which provides that a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint alleges that Philips sells and services MRI systems in the district, listing customers in McKinney, Tyler, Rusk, Carthage, and Quitman, Texas, that it says use Philips MRI machines, and Philips sales and service employees based in the district. For personal jurisdiction, it pleads Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) in the alternative.

Relief

The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement and willfulness, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, enhanced damages, an exceptional-case finding and fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and "either a permanent injunction, or, at least, a compulsory ongoing licensing fee with regard to the '026 Patent." The complaint pleads irreparable injury only for the '026 patent, and the prayer ties its injunction or licensing fee request to that patent. Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration date of October 4, 2024 for the '992 patent and an adjusted expiration date of October 2, 2027 for the '026 patent; the complaint does not state either date. Under 35 U.S.C. 286, damages may not be recovered for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint or counterclaim for infringement is filed.

What to watch next

Watch for service on the two Dutch defendants, their response to the complaint, any challenge to personal jurisdiction, any petition for inter partes review of the '026 patent, and how the case proceeds alongside the GE HealthCare and Siemens Healthineers cases in Delaware. The case can end at any time by license, settlement, or dismissal.