A Medical Device Daily

Boston Scientific (Natick, Massachusetts) reported that a jury in U.S. District Court in San Francisco has ruled that it is infringing a patent held by Cordis (Miami Lakes, Florida), a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (Brunswick, New Jersey), under the doctrine of equivalents. The patents in the case involve balloon catheter technology.

Boston Scientific said it believes the finding of infringement is in error and that it will request the judge to overturn it.

The company said that damages were determined because the judge found that Cordis failed to submit evidence sufficient to enable a jury to make a damage assessment. The jury also found invalid four Boston Scientific patents that Cordis allegedly had infringed.

In other patent news:

• Guardian Technologies (Herndon, Virginia), developers of threat detection technology with applications for homeland security and healthcare, reported that the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota has ordered that all claims against Guardian and its co-defendants, Thomas Ramsay and Nancy Goetzinger, dismissed with prejudice.

Bill Donovan, president/CEO of Guardian, said, “From the moment three years ago that this lawsuit was initiated against Guardian, we have steadfastly maintained, and factually supported, our position that the lawsuit was baseless and without merit.”

Guardian says that its technology and product development partnerships include a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security-Science and Technology Directorate.

• Diomed Holdings (Andover Massachusetts) a developer of minimally invasive technologies, including its EndoVenous Laser Treatment (EVLT for varicose veins, reported that District Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued several pretrial orders relating to the patent infringement lawsuit by VNUS against Diomed and its co-defendants, Angio-Dynamics and Vascular Solutions.

Diomed said that the Judge denied both of VNUS’s motions for a pretrial, ruling that the patents were infringed and the defendants’ motion for a pretrial ruling on patent validity. She also denied Diomed’s request for summary judgment that its alleged infringement was not willful, potentially subjecting Diomed to treble damages.

Diomed said that by denying these motions, the judge in effect ruled that they should be decided by the jury. Judge Chesney also considered a number of “motions in limine” to exclude evidence. VNUS had filed five such motions, and Diomed and its co-defendants seven. Although these rulings Diomed said that the rulings may not be indicative of the trial’s ultimate outcome, but she denied all five of VNUS’s motions and granted five of the defendants’ motions in their entirety, denied one motion and granted one motion in part.

The trial, originally scheduled to start Oct. 29, has been delayed based on a conflict in the court’s schedule. A further status conference has been set for Dec. 7, at which time the judge may set a trial date or defer doing so.

Diomed develops minimally- and micro-invasive procedures that use its proprietary laser technologies and disposable products.