• 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 » Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical must face University of California patent suits

Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical must face University of California patent suits

June 1, 2017 By Brad Perriello

University of California, Boston Scientific, St. Jude MedicalBoston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) and Abbott (NYSE:ABT) subsidiary St. Jude Medical must face lawsuits brought by the University of California alleging that their ablation catheters infringe a pair of patents covering atrial fibrillation treatments.

The university’s regents sued the companies last October (a similar suit was brought against AtriCure (NSDQ:ATRC) the next month, according to court documents), accusing the companies of violating patents covering the invention by UC-San Francisco professor Dr. Michael Lesh of a technique to isolate the pulmonary vein via catheter ablation.

Boston Scientific and St. Jude each filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the wide variety of products listed in the complaints contains many devices that don’t perform any of the allegedly infringing functions and others that are not FDA-approved for that use. (AtriCure did not file a motion to dismiss its case, according to the documents.)

That means, the companies argued, that “the complaint’s allegations of contributing to or actively inducing physicians’ use of their devices to perform the patented method are not plausible,” according to the documents.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for Northern California disagreed, ruling this week that the complaints don’t have enough information for her to determine whether there are non-infringing uses for the catheters.

“This is, at best, a matter to be established with an evidentiary record at summary judgment,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote in her decision on the Boston Scientific case. “To the extent that BSC asserts that some of its products are incapable of being used to perform the patented method as alleged, the truth of such assertion is not apparent from the face of the complaint. Indeed, much of BSC’s argument relies on matters outside the pleadings and more properly suited for a determination based upon a factual record.”

In St. Jude’s case, she wrote, “the parties provide conflicting interpretations and out-of-context arguments about the import of illustrations and statements in the SJM patient handbook attached as Exhibit 9. These conflicting interpretations serve only to demonstrate a dispute exists as to whether the identified products have other substantial, material uses, or only perform the patented method. These factual matters will need to be established through an evidentiary record after discovery, perhaps at summary judgment,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

Filed Under: Catheters, Legal News, Patent Infringement Tagged With: Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cardiac Rhythm Management, stjudemedical, University of California San Diego

More recent news

  • Neuralink files to raise $649M in new equity offering
  • BofA: Surgical robot remanufacturing not a major setback for Intuitive
  • InspireMD wins CE Mark approval for CGuard Prime
  • Philips reports first cases for VeriSight Pro 3D ICE catheter in Europe
  • Ceryx Medical raises $15M to support bioelectronic pacemaker

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