Medtronic and IRS Dispute Resolution Provides Guidelines on Transfer Pricing Agreements

Jun 24, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Medtronic’s Puerto Rican affiliate, Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. (MPROC), and Medtronic entered into four separate intercompany agreements covering Medtronic’s sales of components to MPROC and MPROC’s sale of finished products to Medtronic. Medtronic priced each of the four agreements separately, such that MPROC was treated as “a full-fledged entrepreneurial licensee responsible for its own success.” Despite these agreements, the IRS treated MPROC as a contract manufacturer, rather than an autonomous manufacturing licensee of medical devices.

The IRS argued that MPROC posted “outsize profits” in tax years 2005 and 2006, leading to “absurd results,” such as returns on assets of 211 percent and 301 percent, thereby making MPROC vastly more profitable than Medtronic and Medtronic’s competitors. The court found, however, that the IRS’ treatment of MPROC was fatally flawed in that it treated MPROC as a mere assembly operation, rather than a company critical to the quality of the products. The court cited several factors as indicative of the character of MPROC, including the facilities being registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration responsible for manufacturing medical devices for treatment of cardiac and neurological conditions and employing 2,300 workers—including engineers—in three locations.

While similar cases will be highly fact-specific, this case is instructive of the structure and circumstances necessary to uphold intercompany transfer pricing agreements.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C., No. 6944-11, T.C. Memo. 2016-112, June 9, 2016.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.