On April 3, 2014, an unfavorable jury verdict was delivered against NuVasive, Inc. (Nasdaq: NUVA) relating to NuVasive’s use of the trade name “NeuroVision” in the amount of $30.0 million. NuVasive strongly disagrees with the verdict and intends to vigorously defend its right to use the
“NeuroVision” trademark. The Company intends to file post-trial motions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”) seeking judgment as a matter of law, and, in the alternative, a new trial. If necessary, the Company intends to appeal the verdict to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”). In the event NuVasive’s post-trial motions are denied and judgment is ultimately entered by the District Court, any payment of damages per the judgment will be stayed pending resolution of the appeals process (which could take up to two years).
NuVasive has been in litigation with NMP over this matter since September 2009, when NMP initially filed suit. In January 2011, after trial of the matter, the District Court ordered that a judgment against NuVasive be entered in the case in the amount of $60.0 million, plus attorney fees and costs, including a permanent injunction prohibiting NuVasive’s use of the “NeuroVision” name for marketing purposes. NuVasive promptly appealed the verdict to the Circuit Court, and, in September 2012, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that:
– reversed and vacated the District Court’s judgment against NuVasive;
– reversed and vacated the injunction and the award of attorney fees and costs against NuVasive;
– remanded the case back to the District Court for a new trial; and– Instructed the District Court to assign the case to a different judge for the new trial.
This case relates solely to the use of the “NeuroVision” brand name and has no impact on NuVasive’s proprietary neuromonitoring technology that underlies NuVasive’s NVM5® nerve monitoring system or future products. NuVasive does not anticipate any disruption to sales or the ability to meet surgery demands based on this verdict.