Why did Synthes Sue Spinal Kinetics ????

[JK2234]

Synthes Sues Spinal Kinetics Over Artificial Discs (Update1) - Bloomberg

Anyone have more details?

I read about this in sportsnut3007 other thread.

[Carson]

There are always ostensible reasons, eg keel patents, but the literal reason is preservation of market share.

It's not just Spinal Kinetics of course. Synthes sued Medtronic (maverick disc) for infringement, lost profits and royalties. Synthes filed suit against Diverse Surgical Supplies Inc. Synthes has sued MedFix Solutions. Synthes filed claim against Stryker Corporation and others. They've sued various companies for reasons ranging from patent infringement to claims of unfair competition and violation of the Lahnam Act.

Synthes even filed a claim against a co. called GM Dos Reis, a Brazilian manufacturer, for simply displaying a disc that had a similar locking "bone plate" at a spinal surgery conference in NY; a claim that was dismissed. It's pretty endless.

Imagine if all that time, effort and legal fees in suing each other was used toward the research & development of spine medicine. Freely sharing ideas instead of suing for infringing on ideas.

[JK2234]

As I sit here with the pro-disc in my neck a tear comes to my eye.

I guess billions was not enough for Synthes.

[Carson]

Spine is an extremely competitive industry. Unfortunately, litigation is part of business as our human nature regrettably governs. It's not just Synthe of course. You can pull up court cases for near any sizable spine co. Synthes has provided much innovation and provided countless people and families of patients with improved health and lives. Innovation and creativity should be rewarded and protected from obvious imitation. The problem, as always, is when industry practices prioritize profits ahead of patients. And in my view litigation often focuses time and effort in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons as patients stand by in pain.

[JK2234]

^ I hear what your saying, but in the world I want to live in all companies would work together to make the very very very best ADR to mimic the "natural" way for the spine to function. But I do understand its always business first.

And although I regret getting the Pro-disc in my C5-C6 I will say something positive about Synthes. My neck does turn left to right more (smooth with a glide) then before surgery and it might have been better then if I had a fusion.

[MDE]

I have to be careful as to what I say, but this is something I deal with on a day to day basis. Patenting new and innovative technologies is an extremely important part of any business. It costs money to develop products. A LOT of money. Then with class 3 products like ADRs, companies are also required to do clinical trials. Which cost even more money.

As a well educated guess I'd say that Synthes put between $80 and $100 Million into the project before they could sell the first one.

How do you think that it's fair for another company to take their innovative unique idea, put less than half of the money into clinical trials (because they're more widely accepted now) and make money off of it?

The patent system does two things. It protects companies who invest in research and design (my job!) by allowing their innovations to become profitable. It also freely shares those ideas by publishing them so that they can stimulate another idea. If you don't allow companies to make money from innovative ideas, companies won't invest into the new technologies because it won't be worth it to them.


As a side note, the original patents (and actually the whole design) on the Pro-Disc were not Synthes' own. They purchased them. And they were very good patents.

[sportsnut3007]

Hey good to see mde back. Mde, do you think anybody will sue axio med aka the maker of the freedom? Do they have any issues with companies coming after them once they get approved? Also, what do you think about the mesoblast stuff for the disc? I know its 7-10 years away but looks interesint, although who knows how long it will last.

[trevize]

They are suing about the keel in particular, if I'm reading the article correctly. The keel seems like a rather obvious bit of design, and I thought patents were supposed to protect non-obvious design for the most part?

For example, let's say I patent an engine that uses nuts and bolts to hold it together. That shouldn't preclude anyone else from building an engine that uses nuts and bolts, as that's a pretty fundamental element. I guess it'll come down to someone deciding whether a keel is obvious enough or not to be part of the patentable design (or else they'll just arrange a licensing agreement).

I have to be careful as to what I say, but this is something I deal with on a day to day basis. Patenting new and innovative technologies is an extremely important part of any business. It costs money to develop products. A LOT of money. Then with class 3 products like ADRs, companies are also required to do clinical trials. Which cost even more money.

As a well educated guess I'd say that Synthes put between $80 and $100 Million into the project before they could sell the first one.

How do you think that it's fair for another company to take their innovative unique idea, put less than half of the money into clinical trials (because they're more widely accepted now) and make money off of it?

The patent system does two things. It protects companies who invest in research and design (my job!) by allowing their innovations to become profitable. It also freely shares those ideas by publishing them so that they can stimulate another idea. If you don't allow companies to make money from innovative ideas, companies won't invest into the new technologies because it won't be worth it to them.


As a side note, the original patents (and actually the whole design) on the Pro-Disc were not Synthes' own. They purchased them. And they were very good patents.

[JK2234]

For example, let's say I patent an engine that uses nuts and bolts to hold it together. That shouldn't preclude anyone else from building an engine that uses nuts and bolts, as that's a pretty fundamental element. I guess it'll come down to someone deciding whether a keel is obvious enough or not to be part of the patentable design (or else they'll just arrange a licensing agreement).

My thoughts exactly...Thats a good example.

[Carson]

When you're talking about an object (an artificial disc) smaller than the size of a raqeutte ball it just takes one over zealous patent to suppress competition and derail all kinds of progress. Pretty scary thought.

Patenting a Keel on an artificial disc, to me, is like Chevy suing Ford for incorporating a steering wheel in their vehicles.