• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

MassDevice

The Medical Device Business Journal — Medical Device News & Articles | MassDevice

  • Latest News
  • Technologies
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Cardiovascular
    • Orthopedics
    • Neurological
    • Diabetes
    • Surgical Robotics
  • Business & Finance
    • Wall Street Beat
    • Earnings Reports
    • Funding Roundup
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Initial Public Offering (IPO)
    • Legal News
    • Personnel Moves
    • Medtech 100 Stock Index
  • Regulatory & Compliance
    • Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
    • Recalls
    • 510(k)
    • Pre-Market Approval (PMA)
    • MDSAP
    • Clinical Trials
  • Special Content
    • Special Reports
    • In-Depth Coverage
    • DeviceTalks
  • Podcasts
    • MassDevice Fast Five
    • DeviceTalks Weekly
    • OEM Talks
      • AbbottTalks
      • Boston ScientificTalks
      • DeviceTalks AI
      • IntuitiveTalks
      • MedtechWOMEN Talks
      • MedtronicTalks
      • Neuro Innovation Talks
      • Ortho Innovation Talks
      • Structural Heart Talks
      • StrykerTalks
  • Resources
    • About MassDevice
    • DeviceTalks
    • Newsletter Signup
    • Leadership in Medtech
    • Manufacturers & Suppliers Search
    • MedTech100 Index
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • Whitepapers
    • Voices
Home » Mirowsky fights $6m legal tab in Medtronic spat

Mirowsky fights $6m legal tab in Medtronic spat

November 24, 2015 By Brad Perriello

Medtronic

Mirowski Family Ventures, on the hook for a $6 million tab for Medtronic‘s (NYSE:MDT) legal costs, told a federal appeals court last week that a lower court misconstrued a 24-year-old deal with Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY).

The long-running case involves patents licensed to Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX). MFV represents the estate of Dr. Michel Mirowski, who helped invent the implantable defibrillator. The group, which controls several patents related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, has been pursuing patent infringement cases against Medtronic, Guidant and successor Boston Scientific for years.

In January 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that MFV must prove Medtronic’s devices were in violation, even though Medtronic filed the original patent challenge in 2003, while still under a 1991 sub-license agreement for the technology. The high court in October 2014 declined to hear MFV’s petition that it revisit a lower court decision that Medtronic did not infringe MFV’s patents, which were sub-licensed to Medtronic through Guidant’s then-owner, Lilly. Boston Scientific acquired Guidant in 2006. In late September 2014, a Maryland circuit court ordered that Boston Scientific pay MFV $309 million in back royalties and damages.

Judge Susan Robinson of the U.S. District Court for Delaware ruled in June that MFV must cover legal costs in the case, which made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year. Medtronic then asked Robinson to award more than $6 million in fees, “reflecting the amounts paid by Medtronic litigating this action from August 2007 through June 2015,” according to court documents.

“These are amounts billed by Robins Kaplan, lead counsel in this matter, and WilmerHale, whose attorneys were retained to represent Medtronic at the United States Supreme Court,” according to the filings.

MFV countered that Robinson erred in ruling that the deal between Medtronic and Lilly applied to MFV.

“The Mirowski family never ‘took over’ Lilly’s obligations under the 1991 cross license. Indeed, it would have been impossible for the Mirowski family to do so since it had no right to license the Lilly patents, or even the Mirowski patents. Nor would Medtronic have ever agreed to such a takeover since it would have taken away Medtronic’ s license to the Lilly and Mirowski patents,” MFV argued, according to court documents, calling Robinson’s justification “plainly baseless” for a couple of reasons.

“First, as the district court plainly stated in its 2011 decision, both Guidant and its parent BSC did assert infringement. Also, the district court specifically entered judgment of non-infringement against Guidant and BSC,” the family argued. “Second, the 1991 cross license specifically provides that the DJ challenge fee provision is only applicable to ‘the losing party’ and the only parties to the cross license were Lilly and Medtronic. Further, the cross license makes no reference to ‘the party asserting infringement.’ Rather, it only refers to Lilly asserting infringement.”

Filed Under: Cardiovascular, Legal News, Patent Infringement Tagged With: Boston Scientific, Cardiac Rhythm Management, Eli Lilly & Co., Guidant Corp., Medtronic, Mirowski Family Ventures

More recent news

  • A new way to monitor glucose: Glucotrack explains 3-year CBGM implant technology
  • Dexcom continues advances in AI for CGM, type 2 diabetes awareness
  • Tandem continues to deliver more options, benefits for those with diabetes
  • Breaking: Sequel to launch twiist automated insulin delivery system next month
  • Dexcom shares U.S. report on CGM benefits for type 2 diabetes

Primary Sidebar

“md
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest med device regulatory, business and technology news.

DeviceTalks Weekly

See More >

MEDTECH 100 Stock INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
MDO ad

Footer

MASSDEVICE MEDICAL NETWORK

DeviceTalks
Drug Delivery Business News
Medical Design & Outsourcing
Medical Tubing + Extrusion
Drug Discovery & Development
Pharmaceutical Processing World
MedTech 100 Index
R&D World
Medical Design Sourcing

DeviceTalks Webinars, Podcasts, & Discussions

Attend our Monthly Webinars
Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

MASSDEVICE

Subscribe to MassDevice E-Newsletter
Advertise with us
About
Contact us

Copyright © 2025 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Privacy Policy