A Medical Device Daily

Applied Medical Resources (Rancho Santa Margarita, California) reported that, in response to a patent suit filed by Tyco Healthcare (Mansfield, Massachusetts), it has filed a patent infringement countersuit in the Eastern District of Texas against Tyco Healthcare and its subsidiary U.S. Surgical (Norwalk, Connecticut).

Applied Medical alleges that Tyco infringes three Applied Medical trocar-related patents by making certain U.S. Surgical Step and Versaport trocar products. Applied Medical is seeking an injunction to stop further distribution of the infringing products.

Applied Medical also alleges that Tyco's patents in the case are unenforceable, invalid and not infringed. It also alleges that while Tyco's U.S. Surgical subsidiary was prosecuting those patents, it was aware of patent-precluding prior inventions, yet failed to disclose those prior inventions to the U.S. Patent Office.

Applied Medical said this is the fourth case in which it has asserted infringement by Tyco's U.S. Surgical subsidiary.

It said that in 1998, U.S. Surgical paid Applied Medical $20.5 million for willful infringement of three patents. It said that in 2005, U.S. Surgical was ordered to pay an additional $64.5 million plus interest for U.S. Surgical's second willful infringement of one of Applied Medical's patents. And this year, it said, the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of non-infringement by U.S. Surgical and ordered the third patent infringement case against U.S. Surgical back to the trial court for further proceedings.

In other court news: Hypertension Diagnostics (HDI, St. Paul, Minnesota) reported that the Minnesota State Court of Appeals has ruled against it in the matter of Charles F. Chesney, et. al. vs. Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. The court upheld a previous ruling by the Hennepin County District Court which granted Chesney and Julie Radosevich, former employees, $138,381.79 in cash and 714,286 shares of common stock, which the company will have to register to be freely tradable.

HDI said it “sought but did not receive the return of certain property from Chesney and Radosevich as part of the mediation agreement,” and that it has decided not to appeal the ruling to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. It said that if Chesney and Radosevich were to quickly liquidate the shares issued to them in the settlement, these sales would have an adverse effect on its stock price and might impact its ability to raise equity in the future. It also said that attempts to negotiate a cash settlement in lieu of the 714,286 shares have been unsuccessful.