On the “good” side, Stryker Corp. recently inked a deal for Concentric Medical Inc.&md

On the “good” side, Stryker Corp. recently inked a deal for Concentric Medical Inc.—$135 million in an all-cash transaction. The acquisition, pending regulatory approval, is expected to close early in the fourth quarter.

Nabbing Concentric Medical provides Stryker with immediate entry into one of the fastest-growing segments of the interventional neurovascular space—ischemic stroke. Ischemic stroke represents the vast majority of all strokes. Industry data indicate that stroke is a leading cause of death and serious long-term disability in the developed world. Ischemic stroke represents over 85 percent of strokes and occurs when a blockage or clot develops in one of the arteries supplying blood to the brain.

Concentric Medical manufactures and markets minimally invasive devices that are endovascularly delivered to the brain to remove blood clots that cause ischemic stroke. Mountain View, Calif.-based Concentric launched its Merci Retriever in 2004. More recently, the company launched the Trevo Retriever in Europe in 2010. The Trevo Retriever is the first device to retrieve clots from the neurovasculature, according to the company. The device currently is being evaluated in a clinical trial investigating safety and efficacy.

“We believe Stryker is the ideal strategic partner for Concentric and combining Concentric with Stryker’s Neurovascular division will provide opportunities to accelerate the development of technology and clinical evidence and will allow the commercial expansion of Concentric’s ischemic stroke therapy globally. Our team is excited to be joining the Stryker organization,” said Maria Sainz, president and CEO ofConcentric Medical.

In the “not-so-good” column, Stryker’s legal battle with Zimmer Holdings Inc. over alleged talent poaching is escalating. Lawyers for both sides are feverish over the disclosure of documents in the case, with each company accusing the other of ignoring court-established deadlines. The case initially was filed in April.

In series of letters sent between Aug. 1 and Aug. 3, each side used colorful adjectives to describe the other’s position. Words such as “ludicrous,” “frivolous,” and “premature” were used, as well as phrases such as “just another attempt to waste this court’s … time,” “material misrepresentation of fact,” and“blatant gamesmanship.”

Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey denied Zimmer’s motion to sanction Stryker’s bid to extend discovery deadlines. She ordered both sides to deliver documents and related privilege logs by Aug. 11, according to court documents.

Stryker claims that Zimmer enacted a scheme to recruit its executives by “willfully and maliciously targeting and soliciting Stryker employees for employment at Zimmer,” according to the lawsuit.

“Using the recommendations of former Stryker Spine sales leaders it previously recruited, Zimmer first identified high-potential Stryker employees … and induced them to breach [their] contractual obligations by asking them to gauge their coworkers’ initial level of interest in an ‘opportunity’ with Zimmer,” the complaint states.

“Once these trusted ‘ringleaders’ planted the bait, Zimmer would make contact with the new Stryker recruits, offering significant salary increases and additional perks to capture the attention of employees who had no prior contact with or interest in working for Zimmer.”

The “ringleaders” then allegedly sought to pressure the recruits “by urging them not to ‘disappoint the team’ or ‘throw a wrench’ in the team’s plans to go to Zimmer en masse,” according to the suit.

Stryker claims the scheme resulted in the loss of almost two entire sales branches in Arizona and Las Vegas, Nev. The company anticipates the loss of millions of dollars in sales due to Zimmer’s alleged actions.

The battle with Zimmer isn’t Stryker’s only legal matter at the moment. The company also is embroiled in a case with former distributor BioInitiatives Inc. and DePuy Spine, and it is fielding complaints from patients about manufacturing problems with its pain pump.

Both Roseville, Calif.-based BioInitiatives and Warsaw, Ind.-based DePuy asked a California judge for an injunction barring Stryker from enforcing a non-competition clause in the now-expired deal with BioInitiatives, arguing it would violate California’s ban on non-compete agreements.

“Defendant Stryker Spine has recently engaged in activities to enforce comparable non-competition provisions towards other distributors,” state documents filed with the U.S. District Court for Eastern California. “Although confident that the non-competition provisions are void in California, defendant Stryker Spine’s conduct has caused plaintiffs to seek an order from this court confirming their position and avoiding the expected long and drawn out legal fight.”

The contract lapsed on Jan. 25, and BioInitiatives struck a deal with DePuy. The lawsuit aims to declare Stryker’s deal with BioInitiatives “void and unenforceable against California’s fundamental public policy,” and to prevent Stryker from taking any legal action to enforce the non-competition provision in the contract.

Meanwhile, Stryker continues to field patient complaints about its pain pump. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed which allege that Stryker and other device manufacturers improperly are marketing pain pumps for post-operative joint pain, for which the devices are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to the lawsuits. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning to healthcare providers against using pain pumps for “continuous intra-articular infusion of local anesthetics after orthopedic surgery.” Concern about the connection between pain pump use in joints and chondrolysis has been evident since the late 1990s.