A Medical Device Daily

Hologic (Bedford, Massachusetts) reported that it has settled a series of lawsuits with the Ethicon Endo-Surgery (EES; Cincinnati) division of Johnson & Johnson (J&J; New Brunswick, New Jersey) concerning the patents on biopsy devices used to test for breast cancer.

Hologic said it will pay $12.5 million, and Ethicon will pay royalties to Hologic on sales of its Mammotome MR system. The agreement resolves all lawsuits between the companies. Hologic said it will take a charge of up to $12.5 million in its fiscal second quarter, which ends March 27.

Ethicon had filed a lawsuit against Hologic in October 2007. Hologic filed a suit of its own in April 2009, and Ethicon filed another lawsuit in August. Ethicon alleging Hologic's Atec and Eviva biopsy devices infringed on patents related to Mammotome MR, and Hologic said Mammotome infringed on Hologic patents.

The companies agreed to resolve the suits on Feb. 17, and all litigation was dismissed. Neither company acknowledged any liability.

"Based upon the mutual agreement by both parties, we feel the settlement reached is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders," said Mark Casey, senior VP and general counsel. "We are pleased to end all outstanding legal matters between Hologic and EES and to move forward under the settlement agreement."

"We are pleased to resolve this longstanding litigation with Hologic," said Kevin Lobo, worldwide president, Ethicon Endo-Surgery. "We firmly stand behind our intellectual property, which allows us to bring innovative products to market and advance patient care."

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, federal judge Michael Barrett dismissed one patent infringement claim against Hologic, but upheld three other patent claims and other related claims to go to trial (Medical Device Daily, Feb. 4, 2010).

In other legal news:

• A U.S. judge last week dismissed a motion by J&J to reassert claims of interference and add allegations in a case involving an abandoned bid the diversified healthcare company made in 2005 and 2006 for Guidant, which was acquired by rival Boston Scientific (Natick, Massachusetts).

The company alleged that Boston Scientific which ultimately bought Guidant for $27 billion in 2006 and Abbott (Abbott Park, Illinois), tortiously interfered in its 2005 merger agreement with maker Guidant. It also alleged that Guidant was in breach of contract.

J&J, which in 2005 bid $21.5 billion for Guidant, declined to continue a bidding war with Boston Scientific in 2006. A lengthy court case ensued that hinged on a "no solicitation" clause in Guidant's accord with J&J.

Boston Scientific later agreed to divest to Abbott Guidant's vascular intervention and endovascular solutions businesses.

Southern District Court of New York Judge Richard Sullivan said in a ruling filed on Tuesday that J&J's new allegations do not seek to add new cause of action in the ongoing case, and are unnecessary.

Sullivan noted J&J's original complaint was filed more than three years ago.

Another district judge, Gerald Lynch, had found previously that more information was needed to determine whether Guidant violated the no solicitation clause.

"The interest in closing the pleadings and continuing the discovery process outweighs any benefit in allowing (Johnson & Johnson) to add unnecessary allegations to its existing cause of action," Sullivan said in the 13-page ruling that denied the new factual allegations.

J&J is reviewing the ruling.

• Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, California) reported a favorable decision in its trade secrets and breach of contract case against Advanced Materials Technology (AMT; Santa Clara) and three of its employees in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Agilent filed the lawsuit in January 2008 to protect confidential and proprietary information relating to its high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) technology (MDD, Feb. 4, 2008).

The decision in favor of Agilent found that the individual defendants, members of AMT's senior management team, breached their employment contracts with Agilent by removing Agilent property without permission, and used Agilent confidential information to benefit AMT. In particular, the court ruled that AMT illegally used Agilent trade secrets and confidential information in developing its Halo HPLC columns.

The court also ruled that the defendants are liable for monetary damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Agilent as a result of the individual defendants' willful and malicious conduct.