St. Jude Medical and
Volcano Corporation have been fighting a legal battle over patents related to
pressure wire technology in cardiac care. The argument started when St. Jude Medical sued Volcano in the Delaware district court
for infringing five St. Jude patents on pressure guide wires, which are long,
thin, and flexible wires used by cardiologists to insert into a patient's blood
vessel during surgery, such as angioplasty. Angioplasty is basically a surgical
procedure used when a patient's blood vessel gets clogged with plaque. A
balloon is used to swish the plaque to the sides and a stent is placed to keep
the plaque from blocking the blood flow. The pressure wires use a microscopic
pressure-sensing chip that is used to measure fractional flow reserve, and thus
allowing a cardiologist to determine how severe the blockage in the artery is.
Then Volcano
counterclaimed and said that St. Jude had infringed four of its patents.
Volcano later dropped one of the four patents from the lawsuit. On October
19th, 2012 the jury decided that Volcano did not infringe two of St. Jude
Medical's patents and that the other two patents were invalid.
On October 25, 2012,
in response to Volcano's counter claims, a jury of eight ruled in favor of St.
Jude, saying that Volcano had not shown infringement of its patents.
After reading this
article (as well as the Nova article listed below), I want to look into what
factors made some of the patent infringement claims invalid I also want to
learn more about the process of making a counterclaim as well as reaching a cross licensing or royalty
agreement. It would also be good to look at the original patents and trying to
dissect them myself.
It's a shame that grand sums of money were spent debating two patents which the juries decided were invalid. Does this mean that the patent should not have been issued in the first place? If so, does a jury's decision that the patents were invalid actually invalidate the patent and prevent the company from using that patent again in future lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, thank you! You will learn a lot from trying to dissect the patent claims yourself.
ReplyDelete