A federal judge has doubled a juryâs $20.7 million jury award for Boston Scientific Corp. in a patent infringement suit against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Cordis Corp. over stent technology. U.S. District Judge Sue Robinsonâs March 13 order means that Boston Scientific stands to collect $41. 4 million.
Boston Scientific and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. filed the case, Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., in the District of Minnesota in December 2009. That court transferred the case to Delaware in April 2010. The case involved alleged infringement by Cordisâ 2.25 mm Cypher stent.
Boston Scientific claimed that Cordisâs stent, released in 2009, infringed the same patent that that it won a dispute over in 2007.That judgment was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Enhanced damages are relatively uncommon because they require an underlying finding of willfulness, said Michael Albert, co-chairman of the litigation group at Boston-based Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, who wasnât involved in the case.
âIn this particular case, Judge Robinson seems to have focused on the fact that Cordis was selling a product that was effectively identical to something that the Federal Circuit had previously found to infringe,â Albert said.
The Federal Circuit ruling resolved only one portion of the legal disputes between the companies, but ultimately they came to a broad settlement under which Boston Scientific paid Cordis more than $1.7 billion and the companies extended licenses to each other.
In her order, Robinson, of the District of Delaware, adjusted the May 2011 jury verdict to account for lost profits and reasonable royalty damages, plus prejudgment interest. Robinson granted Boston Scientificâs motion for ongoing damages at a royalty rate of 32 percent in lieu of a permanent injunction.
But she denied Boston Scientificâs motion for attorneyâs fees even though Cordisâs infringement was willful. Robinson wrote that Boston Scientific âdoes not specifically challenge Cordisâs behavior in litigation,â except for the fact that it launched the product in the face of an adverse court judgment and used inapplicable defenses, burdening the court and Boston Scientific.
Citing the 1992 Federal Circuit ruling in Read Corp. v. Portec Inc., Robinson found that the following factors favored enhancement: the extent to which Cordis was aware of and investigated the scope of the patent at issue in the case; Cordisâs conduct during the litigation; Cordisâs finances; Cordisâs motivation for harm; how close the case was; and the lack of remedial action.
No factors specifically weighed against enhancement, she added, and several factors were neutral, including that Cordis didnât copy Boston Scientificâs designs and didnât try to hide its infringement.
Boston Scientificâs lawyers at Desmarais LLP in New York, Fish & Richardson and Chicagoâs Kirkland & Ellis referred questions to the company. Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor of Wilmington, Del., which also represented Boston Scientific, did not respond to a request for comment.
âBoston Scientific doesnât want to comment on the judgeâs decision,â said spokesman David Knutson. âWeâll let it speak for itself.â
Lawyers at Ashby & Geddes in Wilmington, Del., who represented Cordis in the case, also referred questions to their client.
âWe are disappointed with the ruling and will appeal,â said Cordis spokesperson Sandy Pound via e-mail.
Albert noted that Cordisâs only defense was related to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office request to re-examine the patent.
âReading between the lines, Judge Robinson may perhaps have felt that Cordis should not have filed this case in the first place,â Albert said.
Overall, the situation is highly unusual because it involved a party that continued fighting a related case even after the Federal Circuit ruled against its position in an earlier case about the patent, he said.
Sheri Qualters can be contacted at [email protected].
This article originally appeared in The National Law Journal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexisÂź and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexisÂź and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]