Boston Scientific Loses Bid for New Patent Trial

A federal judge rejected a request by Boston Scientific Corp. for a new trial in a patent-infringement case that ended with a $501 million judgment against the medical-device maker.

Boston Scientific said it planned to appeal the July 9 ruling by U.S. District Judge T. John Ward in a case involving the company’s drug-treated heart stents.

Dr. Bruce N. Saffran sued the company, claiming that its stents infringed on his 1997 patent covering technology to deliver injury-healing medication inside the body.

Heart stents are mesh-wire tubes that prop open coronary arteries after surgery to remove fatty plaque.

In February, a jury in Marshall that sat through a one-week trial deliberated less than two hours before awarding Saffran $432 million. Ward later raised the amount by adding $69 million for interest on royalties dating to 2004, when Boston Scientific introduced the stents in the United States.

One of Saffran’s lawyers, Gary Hoffman, said the judge’s ruling supported the view that the jury “weighed the evidence on damages and that there was no basis whatsoever” to reduce the award.

Boston Scientific spokesman Paul Donovan said the Natick, Mass.-based company planned to appeal.

“The verdict is unsupported by both the evidence and the law, and we believe we will prevail on appeal,” Donovan said.

Boston Scientific based its motion for a new trial partly on the claim that the judge made prejudicial comments in front of the jury about the conduct of the company’s lawyers.

Ward wrote that the lawyers repeatedly broke his rules by such tactics as trying to elicit improper testimony from witnesses. In seeking a new trial, he wrote, the company was distorting the record of what happened during the trial.

Drug-coated stents are designed to prevent post-surgical scar tissue from creating new blockages in coronary arteries.

Boston Scientific argued that Saffran’s patent differed in design from its Taxus stent. It argued Saffran’s invention was insignificant and that more than 100 companies had declined to pay a license to use it.

Boston Scientific and a unit of Johnson & Johnson dominate the market for newer stents.

Saffran, a radiologist from Princeton, N.J., also sued Johnson & Johnson. That case is pending in the same east Texas district, which attracts many patent claims because of its quick handling of cases and reputation for favoring plaintiffs.

SOURCE: Associated Press