LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/NuVasive Pays Medtronic $45 Million Over Patent Dispute
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

NuVasive Pays Medtronic $45 Million Over Patent Dispute

July 8, 2016 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

NuVasive Pays Medtronic $45 Million Over Patent Dispute
Sources: Pixabay and logos courtesy of NuVasive and Medtronic
Secondary

NuVasive, Inc. and Medtronic plc have made peace.

On June 30, 2016, NuVasive announced that the company has agreed to settle ongoing patent litigation with Medtronic by paying Medtronic $45 million to settle litigation that began in 2008 in federal court in California. The litigation led to a jury verdict finding both companies liable for patent infringement.

Patent Fight

The patent fight included two rounds at a federal appeals court and a brief trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. The fight started when Medtronic filed suit against NuVasive for infringement of Medtronic’s spinal implant and surgical method patents.

NuVasive countersued, accusing Medtronic of infringing its patent on monitoring technology that gives surgeons a way to detect and avoid damaging spinal nerves during surgery. A jury found both sides liable, awarding $101.2 million in damages to Medtronic, and $660, 000 to NuVasive.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized patent court, ordered a retrial on damages on Medtronic’s patents. That retrial had not yet taken place.

In a federal filing, NuVasive said it reached terms for the settlement as well as the withdrawal from related proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Settlement Terms

Advertisement

Under the terms of the settlement, NuVasive will make a one-time, lump sum payment in the amount of $45.0 million to Medtronic, and the parties will release each other from, inter alia, any and all past patent infringement arising from the litigation originally filed against NuVasive by Medtronic.

NuVasive previously established a litigation liability reserve related to the litigation, which as of March 31, 2016, the company says exceeded the amount of the lump sum payment. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties have also agreed to grant each other “irrevocable, worldwide, nonexclusive, paid-up, royalty-free licenses to practice certain of their respective patents as to certain of their respective existing product lines, subject to specified exceptions and limitations.”

NuVasive and Medtronic also agreed that for a period of seven years, “neither party will assert against the other certain claims for patent infringement (generally claims related to spinal implants and related instruments, biologics and neuromonitoring) other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions.”

Additionally, Medtronic has agreed that, for a period of five years, it will not assert against NuVasive “certain other claims for patent infringement other than through a specified dispute resolution process, with the right to thereafter pursue claims outside that process subject to certain limitations and exceptions.”

Framework for Resolution

Greg Lucier, NuVasive’s CEO said, “We are very pleased to have negotiated a mutually agreeable settlement that removes the ongoing burden of this litigation and provides for a framework for resolution of potential patent disputes in the future.”

Medtronic spokesman Eric Epperson said, “We look forward to continue focusing our efforts on accelerating innovations that transform spine surgery and improve outcomes for more patients.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

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?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

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.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

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.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy