Boston Scientific wins $200M stent patent infringement case against doctor

Express LD iliac and biliary stent--Courtesy of Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific ($BSX) won a patent infringement case against a Dr. G. David Jang, who alleged that the device bigwig's Express Stent violated claims of a patent assigned to him by the company. The peripheral stents have earned billions since the lawsuit was filed in 2005.

Dr. Jang claimed more than $200 million in damages and unpaid royalties. The dispute originated in 2002, when Boston Scientific licensed two patents from Dr. Jang for $50 million upfront and $110 million contingent upon sales of stents that utilize the patents, reports Law 360.

Dr. Jang alleged that Boston Scientific failed to make the contingency payments, while the company claimed that its Express stents do not utilize the patents.

The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California agreed with Boston Scientific, ruling that the claims assigned to Dr. Jang would encompass or ensnare prior art. The prior art presented in defense of Boston Scientific were the Brown, Wijay and Lau patents.

Hypothetical claims that are broader than preexisting claims must be made under the legal defense used by Dr. Jang, known as "the doctrine of equivalents." But the court ruled that Dr. Jang's first hypothetical claim improperly and impermissibly narrowed a preexisting claim about the location of stent struts, while the second failed to broaden a preexisting claim that was also about stent struts.

In July, a jury ruled that Boston Scientific did not conduct literal patent infringement, but said it still violated Dr. Jang's patent claim under the doctrine of equivalents.

But Boston Scientific's subsequent ensnarement defense was successful in California district court, meaning the company "is entitled to a final judgement in its favor on all claims, and shall submit a Proposed Judgement," according to the ruling.   

Boston Scientific was represented by Washington, DC, law firm Arnold & Porter.

- here's the ruling (PDF)
- here's more from Law 360 (reg. req.)