September 29, 2009 – Cordis Corp. and Boston Scientific announced late today they reached an agreement to resolve several pending lawsuits over intellectual property related to drug-eluting stent and balloon deliver system technologies.
Among the suits that were settled was the Palmaz infringement suit relating to Boston’s NIR stent, and several other interventional cardiology-related patent cases in the Ding, Kastenhofer, Palmaz, and Fontirroche patent families. The deal includes exchanging paid-up licenses for certain intellectual properties and Boston will pay Cordis $716.3 million on Oct. 1.
“We are pleased to resolve several of these patent litigations,” said Seth Fischer, company group chairman and worldwide franchise chairman, Cordis Corp.
In addition to dismissing Boston’s appeal from the judgment entered in the NIR case, pending proceedings under a Canadian Palmaz patent will also be dismissed. Cordis and Boston also agreed to dismiss their U.S. and foreign Ding, Fontirroche, and Kastenhofer cases, and to exchange paid up licenses under the Ding, Kastenhofer, Fontirroche, Pinchuk and Canadian Palmaz patents.
The Canadian Palmaz patent relates to stents used in the treatment and diagnosis of coronary artery disease. The Ding patents relate to designs for drug-eluting stents. The Kastenhofer and Fontirroche patents pertain to designs for balloon catheters and stent delivery systems. The Pinchuk patent relates to balloon materials.
“We are pleased we have been able to significantly reduce the amount of outstanding litigation we have with Johnson & Johnson,” said Ray Elliott, president and chief executive officer of Boston Scientific. “We continue to work with them to resolve other outstanding matters.”
The settlement includes cross licenses for all the patents in the suits, other than the Palmaz patent, which has expired.
The lawsuits that have been settled include:
1. Cordis Corp. vs. Medtronic Vascular Inc., Boston Scientific Corp. et al., D. Del., CA 97-550
2. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Expandable Grafts Partnership and Cordis Corp. vs. Boston Scientific Ltd./Boston Scientifique LTEE, Canadian Federal Court, Toronto, Ontario docket: T-1822-97
3. Johnson & Johnson Inc. vs. Boston Scientific Ltd./Boston Scientifique LTEE, Canadian Federal Court, Toronto, Ontario docket T-63-08;
4. Boston Scientific Corp. vs. Johnson & Johnson, ND Cal., CA 3:02-cv-790
5. Schneider (Europe) GmbH vs. Johnson & Johnson Medical NV, Brussels Court of First Instance under General Docket No. A.R. 04/9656/A/
6. Schneider (Europe) GmbH vs. Cordis Medizinische Apparate GmbH, Dusseldorf District Court, Action No. 4b O 211/07
7. Schneider (Europe) GmbH vs. Cordis, First Instance Court of Paris, Docket No. 06/02.924
8. Schneider (Europe) GmbH vs. Johnson & Johnson Medical S.P.A., Court of Turin
9. Cordis v. Schneider - Damage request filed Aug. 3, 2009
10. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. vs. Cordis Corp., D. Del., CA 03-283
11. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. vs. Cordis Medizinische Apparate GmbH, District Court of Mannheim, Civil Division, docket No. 7 O 429/04
12. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. vs. Cordis Medizinische Apparate GmbH, District Court of Mannheim, Civil Division, docket No. 7 O 18/08
13. Scimed Life Systems, Inc. vs. Cordis Corp., United States District Court, Minnesota, Civil Action 97-752
14. Cordis Corp, vs. Scimed Life Systems Inc., United States District Court, Minnesota, Civil Action 4-96-261
Other litigation between the two companies will not be affected by this settlement, including the Cordis lawsuit against Boston Scientific related to its Express, TAXUS, TAXUS Liberte and PROMUS Stents, and the pending Fischell case against NIR filed by Cordis. Boston’s lawsuit against the CYPHER drug-eluting stent under the Jang patent will continue as well.
For more information: www.cordis.com, www.bostonscientific.com