No, this isn’t another article about Johnson & Johnson’s strategy to sue the American Red Cross. I’ve questioned J&J’s legal strategy (not to mention their Communications preparedness) in other articles, but this one just baffles me—
It goes like this: Johnson & Johnson “lawyers hoped to persuade a federal judge in Delaware that because Johnson & Johnson’s drug-coated Cypher stent had been linked in clinical studies to blood clots, it fell outside the safety profile of a Boston Scientific patent.”
In other words J&J is telling doctors and patients one thing and something else to the courts: “That position appeared to contradict Johnson & Johnson’s repeated assertions in its communications with doctors and the public in the past year that Cypher is no more likely to induce clots than older bare-metal stents.”
And in plain English: There are more safety concerns with our product, so we obviously didn’t violate their patent. I can’t wait to get my hands on the court transcripts!
The J&J lawyers should be commended for their honesty.