Laser Device Companies Seek Summary Judgment in Patent Infringement Case
Earlier this month, Diomed Inc., a subsidiary of Diomed Holdings Inc. (Andover, MA), filed a motion for summary judgment against AngioDynamics Inc. (Queensbury, NY) and Vascular Solutions Inc. (Minneapolis) in the two-year-long patent infringement dispute over its minimally invasive endovenous laser treatment for varicose veins. The action came just two weeks after AngioDynamics sought a summary judgment against Diomed in the same court.
The case dates back to January 2004, when Diomed first brought legal action against AngioDynamics in the United States Federal District Court in Massachusetts. The company filed a similar claim against Vascular Solutions later that year. At Diomed’s request, the two cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.
 |
|---|
| Diomed’s Wylie: Confident in evidence. |
Diomed claims that, in September 2003, it obtained exclusive rights to the devices used in its endovascular laser treatment of varicose veins directly from the five original inventors.
In seeking a summary judgment, both Diomed and AngioDynamics are asking the court to determine if certain issues involved in the dispute can be settled as a matter of law. Such a ruling would not preclude a subsequent jury trial on the remaining disputes. The court is likely to schedule a hearing within the next month or so before issuing a decision. If the court orders a trial, it would be held later in the year.
“Diomed is pleased that this case has advanced to the stage at which the judge will have the opportunity to review and consider the extensive evidence, including expert reports, which we believe clearly establish that the defendants have copied our patented method and are infringing our valuable intellectual property rights,” said James A. Wylie, president and CEO of Diomed Holdings.
On the other side of the dispute, Eamonn P. Hobbs, president and CEO of AngioDynamics, also said his company is positioned to come out on top in the matter. “We are confident in the strength of our position of noninfringement, as outlined in this motion for summary judgment,” he said.
 |
|---|
| AngioDynamics’ Hobbs: Holding firm. |
Vascular Solutions has not yet publicly responded to Diomed regarding the call for summary judgment. However, in earlier court action this past July regarding the same dispute, CEO Howard Root referred to Diomed’s patent infringement claims as “bizarre” and said that although the court took Diomed’s trade secret claims under advisement for subsequent consideration, his company had “conceded nothing on Diomed’s claims.”
Additionally, in another separate-yet-related intellectual property dispute, AngioDynamics has filed a complaint in the United States District Court for Delaware. In the complaint, AngioDynamics alleges that Diomed’s recently issued patent for a medical laser device is “invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by AngioDynamics’ VenaCure system.” In seeking a declaratory judgment, AngioDynamics’ Hobbs said, “This action supports our strong conviction that the Diomed patent is invalid and cannot be enforced. We are confident of a favorable ruling by the court.”
In addition to these legal disputes, Diomed has litigation pending against two other companies involved in the treatment of varicose veins using medical laser devices, Total Vein Products LLC (Houston) and Cool Solutions Inc. (Roseville, CA).
Diomed, with 81 employees, reported 2004 revenues of $13.39 million, a 45.5% increase over 2003 revenues of $9.2 million.
AngioDynamics has 249 employees. For the year ending May 28, 2005, the company reported revenues of $60.29 million, up 22.9% from year-earlier sales of $49.06 million.
Vascular Solutions, with 144 employees, posted annual sales of $22.27 million in 2004, an increase of 88.7% over 2003 revenues.
© 2006 Canon Communications LLC
Return to MX: Issues Update.
