Known for their da Vinci Surgical System, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is an American company that offers robotic products used in minimally invasive surgery.

According the Complaint filed August 06, 2010, during the Class Period Defendants claimed that the "perceived advantages" of the da Vinci robot for prostate operations were causing increasing demand for a da Vinci operation over a traditional human-controlled operation. Prior to the Class Period, Defendants had managed their earnings so as to miraculously beat analyst expectations a few quarters in a row. In truth, a majority of the Company's potential clients had already purchased a da Vinci. Thus, Defendants' aggressive growth (unbeknownst to shareholders) had come to an end prior to the beginning of the Class Period and Defendants were well aware of this fact.

On January 22, 2009, the Company released its actual fourth quarter 2008 sales numbers, revealing that Q4 2008 system sales were $114 million - down from $126 million in Q3 2008. In response, the Company's share price dropped to a close of $93.29 from its previous close of $96.01, a drop of nearly $250 per share, down from a 52-week high of $353.88. In addition, several analysts downgraded the stock to a "hold" from a "buy recommendation."

According to an order dated February 15, 2011, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of lead Plaintiff and approval of its selection of lead Counsel.

On April 15, 2011, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Plaintiff’s lead Counsel. The Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2011.

On August 10, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, however, allowing the Plaintiff leave to amend. When alleging false statements, according to the Court, the Plaintiffs did not satisfy the pleading standards under the PSLRA when identifying false statements. Further, the Court did not find the Plaintiff's allegations sufficient for pleading scienter to survive the motion to dismiss.

September 12, 2011, the lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On May 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk was directed to close the file.

On July 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court dismissing this case.