Medtech Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

NMT Medical, AGA Medical settle

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

In return for full and final settlement of NMT's 1999 patent infringement suit, AGA will pay NMT $30 mil. for a nonexclusive sublicense to patent '420, which relates to NMT's CardioSeal, the two firms announced March 28. The alleged infringement affects all AGA Amplatzer occluding devices. NMT will split the settlement with inventor Lloyd Marks, MD, according to the firm. NMT competes with AGA in the patent foramen ovale occlusion market with STARFlex. Preliminary results of NMT's MIST I trial suggest a connection between patent foramen ovale closure and migraine symptoms (1"The Gray Sheet" March 20, 2006, p. 3)...

You may also be interested in...



MIST Trial Reveals Mixed Results For PFO Treatment Of Migraine

Preliminary clinical trial data show NMT Medical's STARflex patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure device to be no more effective than placebo in completely eliminating migraine headaches, although the device did appear to improve some symptoms

QUOTED. 3 March 2021. Greg Dadika.

Medtech Insight spoke to attorney Greg Dadika about mass tort litigation, including industry trends, how to find the right law firm, and when it’s the right time to settle a suit. See what Dadika, an attorney at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, said about it here.

AstraZeneca/FibroGen’s Roxadustat Comparison To ESAs In Anemia May By Clarified At FDA Advisory Cmte.

Payers would welcome any additional clarity provided by advisory panel review, given the perception, expressed in a recent ICER report, that the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the new drug is safer or more effective than erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL111799

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel