Arthrex, Inc. is suing ArthroCare Corp. and its parent, Smith & Nephew plc, for the second time over certain patent infringement claims.
Arthrex Suing ArthroCare/Smith & Nephew Again Over Patents
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
The first time Arthrex sued over these patents was this past June. That suit alleged 47 counts of infringement related to 12 Arthrex patents. The new suit brings the total to 49 counts relating to the following 13 patents: 9, 179, 907, 8, 821, 541, 8, 801, 755, 8, 623, 052, 8, 343, 186, 7, 329, 272, 7, 322, 986, 7, 195, 634, 6, 875, 216, 6, 629, 977, 6, 511, 499, 6, 214, 031, and 5, 993, 451.
In the new suit filed on November 20, 2015, Arthrex is seeking an injunction and damages on their manufacturing and sale of various lines of implants, including SpeedScrew, SpeedLock, SpeedLock Hip, LabraLock` P, MultiFix, BioRaptor Knotless, Footprint PK, TwinFix and Ultra suture anchors, which are sold by Smith & Nephew to compete with Arthrex’s PushLock and SwiveLock implants.
Litigation History
Arthrex and Smith & Nephew/ArthroCare have a long history of litigation. All in all, Law360 reports there have been six cases between Arthrex and Smith & Nephew. Smith & Nephew acquired ArthroCare for $1.5 billion in 2014.
Back in 2000, Arthrex filed an injunction against ArthroCare to keep ArthroCare from terminating an exclusive distribution agreement. Arthrex was the exclusive distributor for ArthroCare in a large part of the globe. Arthrex also accused ArthroCare of trying to poach its sales reps.
In March 2015, a federal circuit court affirmed a lower court ruling that Arthrex must pay Smith & Nephew $95 million for infringing a patent for surgical suture methods.
John Schmieding, Arthrex’s general counsel, said, “We have full confidence in the strength of our patent position and will not sit back and allow this systematic, serial infringement of our patents, which ultimately harms the growth and advancement of orthopedic medicine and the patients that benefit from those innovations.”
Arthrex is headquartered in Naples, Florida, and has developed more than 9, 000 products for arthroscopic and minimally invasive orthopedic surgical procedures.
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.