Boston Scientific Agrees to Pay $50M to Settle Drug-Eluting Stent Patent Case

Holding:

Boston Scientific Corp. (“BSC”) has announced that it will pay $50 million to settle a dispute with Dr. Bruce Saffron, who claims Boston Scientific infringed his patented technology in U.S. Patent No. 5,653,760 (the "'760 patent"). On July 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied BSC’s motion for a new trial after a jury awarded $501.26 million in actual damages and prejudgment interest to a medical doctor who owned a patent relating to drug-eluting stent. BSC had asked the district court to order a new trial on damages because the jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Specifically, BSC argued that patent-holder Dr. Bruce Saffran’s damages theory was largely based on the assumption that the subject matter claimed in the patent was a significant invention that was necessary to make a drug-eluting stent. BSC claimed that it provided evidence and testimony that more than one hundred companies chose not to license the patent at issue and that Saffran made no significant contributions to the industry. But the trial court rejected BSC’s arguments, ruling that the jury found Saffran’s evidence more credible, and the court may not supplant its judgment for the jury’s finding where the evidence in the record supported the jury’s verdict. Consequently, the trial court held that the damages award should stand. The $50 million settlement resolves all litigation with Dr. Saffran.

Detailed Summary:

Saffran is the owner of the ’760 patent,  entitled “Method and Apparatus for Managing Macromolecular Distribution.” He accused BSC of infringing his patent by engaging in the business of manufacturing, assembling, and selling drug-eluting stents, including, but not limited to, Taxus Express, a Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System.

In its answer, BSC raised the affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. After jury trial, the jury determined that defendant BSC infringed, directly and/or contributorily, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ‘760 patent, but did not find that any of the…

More Updates