preview

Patent Lawsuit over the Transcatheter Aortic Valve

analytical Essay
1409 words
1409 words
bookmark

Medtronic (Minneapolis) and Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, California) were not strangers in patent lawsuits. Edwards is specializing in the production of artificial heart valves and new hemodynamic monitoring technology, whereas Medtronic is specializing in the production of medical devices. In the past, the two companies have problems in patent infringement lawsuits over annuloplasty procedures and endovascular graft (1,2). However, currently another latest patent infringement lawsuit has been occurred and reported between Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards claimed that it has prior intellectual property rights on the new transcatheter aortic valve technology. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement or TAVR is the latest technology used principally for the treatment of aortic stenosis, a condition in which one of the major valves of the heart, the aortic valve, becomes tight and stiff, usually as a result of aging (3). Since many patients who need aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis are too sick to undergo major valve replacement surgery, they are unable to get the treatment they need. With the transcatheter aortic valve, this issue is bypassed because this valve can be implanted in the heart by accessing the patient’s heart through an artery in the groin. The valve can be inserted through a wire that can be pushed to the heart and the old valve is simply pushed to the side when the new valve is implanted. This technology has been in use in the US with Edwards’ Sapiens valve since 2011 and has saved the lives of many patients with aortic stenosis (4). Medtronic’s CoreValve uses similar technology and has won patent fights in Europe and has been in use internationally. However, within U.S., Medtronic has not been... ... middle of paper ... ...Lifesciences' Andersen Patent. 2010:2014. (7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy. 2007. (8) Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. (9) Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geo.Lj 2003;92:435. (10) Gold R. Are Patents Impeding Medical Care and Innovation. 2010. (11) Alten B. Left to One's Devices: Congress Limits Patents on Medical Procedures. 1998;8(3). (12) Court Report:Medtronic Pays Edwards $83.6m Owed for Patent Suit. (13) Edwards up, Medtronic Down after Court Hits Corevalve. 2014; Available at: http://www.veooz.com/news/DH4sahZ.html, 2014. (14) Chieffo A. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation with the Edwards Sapien Versus the Medtronic Corevalve Revalving System Devices: A Multicenter Collaborative Study: The Pragmatic Plus Initiative. 2013;61(8).

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that medtronic and edwards lifesciences are not strangers to patent lawsuits. both companies have problems with annuloplasty procedures and endovascular graft.
  • Explains that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (tavr) is the latest technology used principally for the treatment of aging-related stenosis. the technology has been in use in the us with edwards’ sapiens valve since 2011.
  • Explains that edwards lifesciences' transcatheter aortic valve comes under the andersen family of patents and they argue that medtronic's corevalve revalving technology is an infringement of their intellectual property rights.
  • Explains that intellectual property rights give or inventor rights to copyright, trademark and patent their original creation.
  • Analyzes how the patent lawsuit between edwards lifesciences and medtronic illustrates a fast growing trend in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.
  • Explains that patent litigations are common in industries such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. the tradition of sharing medical knowledge for the benefit of patients is giving way to the notion that the inventor of an innovation has the right to reserve its use because of intellectual property rights.
  • Explains that medtronic and edwards have been fighting over the transcatheter aortic valve technology for the past decade and their fight illustrates the various issues at stake — intellectual property rights, innovation and competition in the market and patient benefit.
  • Analyzes how the medtronic and edwards patent fight over the transcatheter aortic valve has illustrated that patents may provide companies the financial motivation to innovate and develop new products that can immensely advance the medical field, but can also deteriorate into pure money squabbles.
  • Explains that medtronic's corevalve devices do not infringe edwards lifesciences' andersen patent.
  • Explains chieffo a. transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the edwards sapien versus the medtronic corevalve revalving system devices: a multicenter collaborative study.
Get Access