• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • MANUFACTURERS
  • HEADHUNTERS
  • PRODUCT SECTIONS
  • COMPANIES

SPINEMarketGroup

Spine Industry News

  • HOME
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • BROCHURES
  • ARTICLES
  • VIDEOS

Spine Doc Wins $20,3 Million Against Medtronic

November 25, 2016 By SPINEMarketGroup

In early November, a federal jury in Texas awarded Mark Barry, M.D., $20.3 million after finding that Medtronic, plc “actively induced” infringement of patents covering spinal deformity repair services held by Barry, who sued the company in 2014, alleging infringement of a trio of patents. Barry claimed that the company’s CD Horizon Legacy spinal system infringed on his patent entitled, “System and Method for Aligning Vertebrae in the Ameliorating of Aberrant Spinal Column Deviation Conditions.”

According to court documents, the patent claims cover a “method for aligning vertebrae with a tool that allows a single surgeon to rotate the spinal column as a whole, using pedicle screws, spinal rods and a ‘pedicle screw cluster derotational tool.’” The case went to trial November 3, 2016 and wrapped up a week later on Veteran’s Day. The 10 jurors deliberated for about five hours before coming to a unanimous verdict.

After the week-long trial, the jury awarded nearly $15.1 million for infringement of one of the patents in the U.S.; more than $2.6 million for U.S. infringement of the second patent; and another $2.6 million for infringement of that patent outside the U.S. The third patent had been dropped from the suit after Barry licensed the patents to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

MassDevice reported on November 15, 2016, that Barry had also tried to drag Globus Medical, Inc., into the case. He wanted the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania to subpoena Globus for documents related to its competing Revere device, alleging that the discovery was relevant because Globus copied Barry’s system in developing the Revere device. But Judge Harvey Bartle III found that Barry did not offer any factual basis for his allegation that Globus copied his patent.”

In August 2015, we reported that after a motion from the company to dismiss the case, Judge Ron Clark ruled that he would not dismiss the case, but also said the company won’t be subject to pre-case damages on all of the patents. Medtronic has asked for a summary judgement against Barry’s suit alleging prior public use of the invention and that Barry failed to mark the patents and was therefore not entitle to pre-suit damages.

Judge Clark, disagreed with Medtronic’s public use claim, but partially agreed with the company over the pre-suit damages. But, Judge Clark ruled that the company could not, “escape Barry’s inducement and contributory infringement claims.”

We may still hear more from the Texas court. According to court documents, a day before the trial concluded, Medtronic asked for judgment as a matter of law and asked Judge Clark for an extra two days to file supporting briefs for the motion.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 7,670,358; 7,776,072 and 8,361,121.

(Visited 67 times, 17 visits today)

Filed Under: Legal, NEWS Tagged With: 2016, NEWS

Primary Sidebar

PLATINUM SPONSORS

GOLD SPONSORS

MOST POPULAR POSTS

  • BROCHURES
  • (UPDATED 2025): 6 Artificial Cervical Discs You’ll…
  • What’s Happening with Globus Medical? Why Has the…
  • Just Reflective, Not Disappointed: Globus Medical’s…
  • (UPDATED 2024): +8 Lumbar Artificial Discs to Know…
  • Stryker’s Spine Business Sale: A Smart Move or a…
  • Stryker’s Spine Exit: What It Means for…
  • Why Didn’t Globus Medical’s Stock Rise After…
  • Globus Medical extends versatility of Advanced…
  • M6 Discontinued: What Are the Alternatives for a…
  • Dispute Over Spinal Implant Royalties Between…
  • Eminent Spine’s 3D Printed Titanium Pedicle Screw…
  • Orthofix Discontinues M6-C™ and M6-L™ Artificial…
  • (Updated!) 15 Expandable PLIF Cages to Know…!
  • (UPDATED 2024): +108 Stand-Alone Cervical Cages to Know..!
  • Alphatec Today: Where It Stands and Where It’s Heading?
  • What Are the Strategic Reasons Behind Globus…
  • Globus Medical Reports First Quarter 2025 Results
  • Update:Stay Tuned Next Week! Is Globus Medical the…
  • Has Globus Already Surpassed Medtronic in the Spine…
  • LAST 10 VIDEOS PUBLISHED

    1. POWEHI MEDICAL AG: TANTO® Screw
    2. Syntropiq: Taurus TLIF (Short)
    3. LEM Surgical: Dynamis Surgical Robot
    4. Aegis Spine:PathLoc-TA
    5. NGMedical: MOVE®-C Artificial Disc
    6. B.Braun Aesculap: Ennovate® Cervical MIS
    7. Spineart: PERLA® TL Deformity Solutions
    8. NGMedical: MOVE®-C
    9. Normmed Medical: ALIF Peek Cage
    10. PainTEQ: LinQ Sacroiliac

    Recent Comments

    • Sandy on Just Reflective, Not Disappointed: Globus Medical’s Bittersweet Q1 2025
    • SPINEMarketGroup on M6 Discontinued: What Are the Alternatives for a Cervical Artificial Disc?
    • Sergio López-Fombona on M6 Discontinued: What Are the Alternatives for a Cervical Artificial Disc?
    • Drew on Has Globus Already Surpassed Medtronic in the Spine Market? Can J&J Find Its Way Back to the Top?
    • Ahmed Hassan El-Naggary on Has Globus Already Surpassed Medtronic in the Spine Market? Can J&J Find Its Way Back to the Top?
    • Anonymous on Has Globus Already Surpassed Medtronic in the Spine Market? Can J&J Find Its Way Back to the Top?
    • Email
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter!

    Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

    Footer

    • Email
    • Twitter
    • YouTube

    Contact us:

    [email protected] [email protected]

    PRIVATE POLICY

    • Legal Advice
    • Embed Link
    • VIDEOS

    Copyright © 2025 · SPINEMarketGroup

    Manage Cookie Consent
    To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
    Functional Always active
    The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
    Preferences
    The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
    Statistics
    The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
    Marketing
    The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
    Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
    View preferences
    {title} {title} {title}