Stent Royalties and Wars Continue with Jury Ruling Against Johnson and Johnson To Reward Researcher for Patent Violations
Posted Jan 29 2011 3:33pm
This is a game or situation that Johnson and Johnson seems to be good at with their multitude of legal cases with stents. This time they are on the losing end of the stick with a jury ruling they violated a patent. The same researcher also won a case against Boston Scientific on his design. Basically speaking a a consumer, we just want to be able to afford those “patented stents” to save our lives when needed.
This case is slated for an appeal by Johnson and Johnson but again where’s their entire focus, is it on lawsuits or good stents?
Will all these payments and legal cases keep pushing up the price of stents? I see so much of this in the news and we all know how costly it becomes. The companies fight among themselves too and back in April of 2010 we had this big 2 million dollar settlement where Johnson and Johnson won against Boston Scientific so this settlement here with the researcher and his claim looks like peanuts by comparison in dollar value.
There’s one more story here about a judge denying J and J a bid to revive a 5.5 billion dollar anti competition breach of contract lawsuit with Boston Scientific. This is utterly ridiculous and the technology being disputed is highly technical. What don't’ the 2 merge or do something else that’s more intelligent than this, like reach an agreement without years of court cases. Is this the way of the future for financing research and development with stents? '
It’s no wonder we can’t get any good Tylenol back on the shelves with this big dollar war continuing to probably draw a huge amount of corporate focus and the consumer loses again all the way around. BD
(Reuters) - A federal jury in Texas has rendered a $482 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, finding its widely used Cypher stent infringes on the patent of an outside researcher, the company said on Friday.
Dr. Bruce Saffran filed the lawsuit, saying that his stent patent was valid and that the healthcare company infringed on it.
J&J said the company disagrees with the jury's decision, and will fight it.
"We will ask the judge to overturn this verdict and if unsuccessful, we plan to appeal the verdict," a J&J spokesperson said.
Saffran's law firm, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, in a release, said the jury deliberated for two hours before returning its verdict.
The law firm said another federal jury in the same Marshall, Texas, courthouse three years ago rendered a $431.9 million verdict against Boston Scientific Corp, finding that its Taxus stent also infringed Saffran's patent.