A Medical Device Daily

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins reported that it has filed a class action versus Micrus Endovascular (San Jose, California) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of that company’s common stock between Feb. 12, 2007 and Sept. 17, 2007.

Micrus makes implantable and disposable medical devices used in the treatment of cerebral vascular diseases.

The complaint charges Micrus and certain of its officers and directors with issuing “false and misleading” statements and failing to disclose:

that sales at Micrus Design, one of the company’s key subsidiaries, were slowing and not meeting internal expectations as the subsidiary was encountering increasing competition;

that the company was experiencing increased regulatory issues in China and Japan, impeding its ability to get its full complement of products approved for sale in those countries;

and, as a result, the defendants’ positive statements about the company were “lacking in a reasonable basis at all times.”

On Sept. 17, 2007, Micrus reported that it was revising its financial guidance and expects FY08 revenues to be between $65 million and $75 million because of expected product approval delays in China and Japan and slower-than-anticipated sales in North America.

The price of Micrus common stock then dropped from $23.57 a share to $17.37 a share.

In other legal news: AngioDynamics (Queensbury, New York) reported the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment issued in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California in a patent litigation brought by VNUS Medical Technologies against Diomed (Andover, Massachusetts) AngioDynamics and Vascular Solutions (Minneapolis).

Judge Maxine Chesney denied VNUS’s motion for summary judgment of infringement, leaving the issue for trial, and denied defendants’ motion that one patent was invalid in light of the prior art, and invalidity of all asserted patents for non-compliance with the written description and enablement requirements of the patent law, also leaving these issues for trial.

The judge deferred ruling on the defendants’ motion that two of VNUS’s patents are invalid due to prior art, asking VNUS to respond to issues raised by the defendants by Oct. 19.

The case will now proceed to a jury trial, scheduled to begin on Oct. 29.

Diomed, maker of minimally invasive medical technologies, including EndoVenous Laser Treatment (EVLT) systems to treat varicose veins, issued a statement: “We are encouraged that the Judge is closely scrutinizing the validity of the two tumescent patents,” stated James Wylie, president/CEO of Diomed.

“We continue to believe we have a compelling argument for invalidity of these patents.”

Diomed said the court expressly deferred its ruling on a motion for summary judgment made by Diomed’s and co-defendants that two of the VNUS patents-in-suit, the “tumescent” patents, are invalid over the prior art.