NuVasive, Inc. announced on May 6, 2014 that the company reached a settlement agreement with Cadwell Laboratories, Inc., in a lawsuit involving NuVasive’s patented neuromonitoring technology.
NuVasive Settles Neuromonitoring Litigation with Cadwell Labs
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
NuVasive sued Cadwell in 2012 over alleged infringement of NuVasive’s technology, including the integration of nerve monitoring technology during lateral approach spine surgery. As part of the settlement reached between the parties, Cadwell has agreed to exit the lateral spine surgery market, and to no longer provide products, services, or support for lateral approach spine fusion surgeries. In addition, certain of Cadwell’s future products (that rely on NuVasive patented technology) may be required to openly attribute intellectual property ownership to NuVasive and may require a 5% fee paid to NuVasive.
According to the NuVasive press release, the company’s proprietary monitoring platform is the only technology that can deliver real-time information and has been clinically validated for more than 10 years and in eight peer-reviewed publications.
The company’s neuromonitoring technology was previously validated in litigation between NuVasive and Medtronic, Inc. In 2011 a jury verdict awarded monetary damages and back royalty payments to NuVasive in favor of the company’s claim that Medtronic’s NIM-Eclipse System infringed upon NuVasive’s neuromonitoring technology patent. The jury awarded NuVasive $660, 000.
This isn’t the only neuromonitoring litigation in which NuVasive has been involved. Another jury returned a $30 million verdict against NuVasive on April 3, 2014 in a second trial in the company’s ongoing litigation with Neurovision Medical Products over the right to use the trademark, “NeuroVision.”
“At NuVasive, we take immense pride in the investments we have made to be a dominant innovator in the spine market, and we intend to aggressively protect those investments. Our neuromonitoring technology is best in class and is central to the facilitation of surgical reproducibility and safety in less invasive spine procedures. I am exceptionally pleased that the solid intellectual property that surrounds our neuromonitoring technology has once again been validated, ” Chairman & CEO Alex Lukianov added in prepared remarks.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.