Here is the claim from Schatz patent that Express infringes. This patent does not expire until end of 2008. Appeals court has upheld the validity of this patent. Express also clearly infringes Palmaz slot patent claims which expire 11/05. Read and weep, Jim Tobin. and BSX.
Claim 13 Shatz patent 5,902,232 originally filed October 4, 1988
13. A balloon expandable coronary stent for delivery to a coronary artery through an access artery, the stent comprising:
at least three segments, each segment having a generally tubular shape and a first end and a second end;
each segment having a plurality of openings that are disposed substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the segment, the openings forming a series of alternating open and closed portions in each of the first and second ends of the segment;
a first connector extending between and connecting a portion of a first segment to a portion of a second segment;
a second connector extending between and connecting a portion of the second segment to a portion of a third segment;
the first and second connectors being straight elongate members that are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stent and are angularly offset from each other with respect to the longitudinal axis of the stent;
whereby each of the segments may be displaced at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of an adjacent segment when the stent is delivered through a curved portion of the access or coronary arteries; and
the stent having a first diameter which permits intraluminal delivery of the stent through the access artery by percutaneous catheterization and a second, expanded and deformed diameter, the second diameter being attained upon the application from the interior of the stent of a radially, outwardly directed force by inflating a balloon, which second diameter is variable and dependent upon the amount of force applied to the stent, whereby the stent may be expanded and deformed beyond its elastic limit to expand the lumen of the coronary artery.
<"This company does not agree with your view on JNJ being successful with their injunction on BSX.
ANPI InPlay: Angiotech Pharm: litigation concerns overdone - Lehman - Briefing.com ">
What else would they say? What would happen to their stock if the market felt otherwise?
Stentomania, you state �With regards to the off crown flex segment, this design is closed cell with ~30% more flexibility, as far as I have found out, than Bx Velocity. On the new delivery system, it is far superior to Express stent.�
Coming from a legal background you should know better than to be throwing out false information. Even with a 30% increase in flex, the �new� bx will be about 1.5x stiffer than a Zeta, 2x stiffer than a Vision or Express and 4.5x stiffer than a Driver. Lab surveys indicate that the Maverick is the delivery system to beat, at best, at the very best, Cordis matches that system�. Doesn�t quite add up to your �far superior� comment now does it. Keep in mind there are people who actually test these products reading this board, stick to facts and not cheerleading or lose all credibility.
Very interesting post. Between all these very negative issues, it looks like Taxus is going to take a huge hit in Europe in the next quarter. Just added risk and risk to miss projections on this and FDA approval, injunction risks, etc. should continue freefall of this stock. Shorts are going to have a big party at $35/share.
It will be announced this week or next. Also, big news in favor of Cypher in France with reimbursement for Cypher in but NOT for Taxus. So two biggest European accounts are Germany (BSC out by Medinol infringement and injunction), France (#2 market) Cypher but not Taxus gets reimbursement, and Cypher select (much better stent than Express with better drug) re-introduced in Netherlands!. Cypher Select (new stent and delivery system) will be very well received vs. express stent (8% delivery failure with Express in the Wisdom european registry.) European sales will soon be >75-80% Cypher.
Correct. The Medinol patent is rather narrow and, as I said not enforcible in the U.S. so far as far as I can tell. With regards to the off crown flex segment, this design is closed cell with ~30% more flexibility, as far as I have found out, than Bx Velocity. On the new delivery system, it is far superior to Express stent.
If this is the case, it would appear that it is much easier to get around the Medinol patent than the more general patent Cordis holds on slotted tubes.
Is there a structural disadvantage to having the flex segment off the crown?
Are there other companies that have already avoided the Medinol patent in this way?