A Medical Device Daily

The “stent wars” are being waged on at least three levels: on the research side, via studies with competing conclusions concerning their safety; in physician’s offices, with patients and doctors attempting to determine whether to use these devices or not, given the clinical debate; and in the legal venue.

In the most recent battle in the legal arena, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has upheld two separate 2005 jury verdicts which found that Medtronic (Minneapolis) and Boston Scientific (Natick, Massachusetts) infringed the patents related to coronary stents held by Cordis (Miami Lakes, Florida), a business of Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, New Jersey).

“We affirm the judgments against [Medtronic] and [Boston Scientific], and on Cordis’ cross-appeal we reverse the invalidity ruling,” the appeals court said in a 45-page decision.

Cordis issued a statement saying that it intends to ask the U.S. District Court in Delaware to reinstate the damages judgments of $271 million against Medtronic and $324 million against Boston Scientific, plus interest.

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeals has recognized the validity of the prior verdicts,” said Todd Pope, worldwide president for Cordis. “We will urge the U.S. District Court to move expeditiously to reinstate the two previous damages judgments, along with the interest that has accrued during the appeals process.”

Injunctive relief is not at issue because the infringing Medtronic and Boston Scientific stents are no longer on the market.

In March of 2005, separate juries found that Medtronic’s GFX and Microstent II infringed Cordis’ Palmaz (762) and Schatz (984) patents, and that Boston Scientific’s NIR stent infringed the Palmaz patent. The Palmaz and Schatz patents relate to the fundamental design of the first coronary stent developed and introduced by Cordis.

Both patent infringement cases were originally tried in 2000, with Cordis receiving jury verdicts ruling in its favor. After a series of procedural rulings and appeals, both cases were retried in March of 2005, with Cordis prevailing again.

“We affirm the judgments against (Medtronic) and (Boston Scientific), and on Cordis’ cross-appeal we reverse the invalidity ruling,” the appeals court said in its 45-page decision.

The case was sent back to the district court to determine damages.

Cordis said in a statement that it intended to ask the U.S. District Court in Delaware to reinstate the damages set in 2005 of $271 million against Medtronic and $324 million against Boston Scientific, plus interest.

“We are very pleased that the court of appeals has recognized the validity of the prior verdicts,” said Todd Pope, worldwide president of Cordis.