Nevro escalates patent dispute with Boston Scientific
Medical device maker Nevro has hit competitor Boston Scientific (BSC) with a lawsuit for allegedly infringing patents that cover a spinal cord stimulation technology.
The complaint was filed at the US District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday, February 23.
Nevro contends that BSC’s newly launched WaveWriter Alpha set of products infringe five patents, US numbers 10,556,112; 10,576, 286; 8,892,209; 8,792,988 and 9,333,357.
The patents relate to paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, which treats pain with short electrical pulses. The therapy relieves pain by delivering electrical pulses to the spinal cord through small electrodes that are implanted near the spinal cord.
This is the latest development in a long-running feud between two companies over patented technology. In December, Nevro agreed to drop a 2016 patent infringement suit that accused BSC of infringing its patents.
In the latest suit, Nevro has claimed that: “just days after the dismissal of the California lawsuit, BSC announced that the [Food and Drug Administration] had approved a new set of products, called ‘WaveWriter Alpha’,” designed to copy Nevro’s paresthesia-free technology at lower frequencies.”
“While SCS technology has been on the market for decades, Nevro’s patented SCS technology is significantly more effective than the traditional systems supplied by the rest of the SCS industry, said Nevro.
The company claimed that consequently BSC had “repeatedly copied” Nevro’s products and patented technology.
The medical devices company went on to state that BSC has “aggressively pursued commercialisation” of lower frequency, paresthesia-free SCS products through its new Alpha product line in blatant violation of Nevro’s IP.
“BSC launched the Alpha products in January 2021 despite being acutely aware that Nevro’s paresthesia-free technology is patent-protected,” the filing said.
Nevro has sought a reasonable royalty or lost profits and has stated that BSC’s intentional infringement warranted the tripling of any damages awarded.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
