Hologic Inc. v. Senorx Inc.
Published: May 29, 2010 | Result Date: Feb. 24, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 08CV00133(RMW) Verdict – Defense
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Adam D. Harber
(Williams & Connolly LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Lynn J. Verhey
(medical)
Defendant
Paul Parker
(technical)
Douglas Arthur
(medical)
Henry Hirschberg
(medical)
Hugh B. Coakham
(medical)
Colin Orton
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Hologic Inc. owned MammoSite Radiation Therapy System, creating a market for balloon-based brachytherapy devices for breast cancer treatment. The device was used to deliver a symmetric radiation dose to the margins of the cavity after a lumpectomy procedure. The device's uses were described in three patents assigned to Hologic. Defendant SenoRx Inc. sold the Contura Multi-Lumen Balloon for breast cancer treatment.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Hologic contended that SenoRx's device infringed on, and contributed to infringement of, their patents. It also alleged that SenoRx violated the California False Advertising and Unfair Competition statutes in marketing Contura, also violating the federal Landham Act.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
SenoRx denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim, alleging the patents were invalid for failure to meet patentability conditions.
Result
The jury rendered a verdict for the defense.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Jan. 8, 2008.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390