Medtech Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

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

Coronary stent patent case resolution (again)

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

A stent patent case that has been in federal court since the 1990s will get closer to possible resolution Sept. 30 when a federal judge in Delaware plans to issue final judgment, reinstating infringement damages plus interest from Boston Scientific and Medtronic to Johnson & Johnson/Cordis that were initially awarded in 2000. The infringement findings, relating to Cordis' Palmaz balloon expandable stent patent, and damages of $324 million from Boston Scientific and $271 million from Medtronic, were set aside in 2002 in response to appeals and other procedural steps. A new trial was ordered, and in 2005 a jury again found in favor of Cordis. Boston Scientific and Medtronic no longer offer stents using the infringing platforms. On Sept. 15, Judge Sue Robinson rejected Boston Scientific's motion for yet another new trial, a decision that the firm plans to appeal

You may also be interested in...



J&J scores $1.2 bil. in stent patent fight

Appeal of a $1.2 billion stent patent infringement judgment in favor of Johnson & Johnson/Cordis is the next step for defendants Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Final judgment entered in Delaware federal court Sept. 30 calls for Boston Scientific to pay $703 million in damages and pre-judgment interest, and Medtronic to pay $521 million. The award follows jury findings in 2000 and 2005 that the firms infringed J&J's Palmaz patent. An Oct. 1 report from Morgan Stanley analyst David Lewis suggests that the legal ruling, while "not insignificant," is "manageable" for Boston Scientific and Medtronic, in part since both firms have already established some reserves to help pay the costs and they will look to appeal. The companies no longer offer stents using the infringing platforms (1"The Gray Sheet" Sept. 22, 2008, In Brief)

Cosmetic And Personal Care Trademark Review: 16 April

Personal care and cosmetic product trademark filings compiled from the Official Gazette of the US Patent and Trademark Office, Class 3.

Health And Wellness Weekly Trademarks Review: 16 April

Trademarks are registered and published for opposition with the US Patent and Trademark Office and are published weekly in the agency's Official Gazette.

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT026583

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