Eagle with Stars and Stripes
Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854

Zimmer Ordered To Pay $228M In Patent Case

Posted
A federal district judge has ordered Warsaw-based Zimmer Holdings Inc. to pay Stryker Corp. about $228 million in a patent-infringement case.
Judge Robert Jonker of the U.S. District Court for Michigan’s Western District on Wednesday threw out Zimmer's challenge of a jury verdict in Stryker's favor, the Associated Press reports.
The jury had awarded Stryker $70 million and Jonker tripled that amount to $210 million because Zimmer willfully infringed on three patents held by Stryker. Jonker also said Stryker is entitled to $18 million in additional damages and interest.
Kalamazoo, Mich.-based Stryker sued Zimmer in 2010, saying Zimmer's line of Pulsavac Plus devices infringed on its patents. They are hand-held, battery-powered, disposable devices used to clean wounds and remove dead tissue during surgery.
In addition, Jonker issued a permanent injunction banning Zimmer from selling infringing products, including from its Pulsavac Plus line, according to Reuters.
Jonker said there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding, including testimony that Zimmer virtually instructed its design team to copy Stryker's products.
He also noted that Zimmer's recent annual profit has been more than 10 times the size of the verdict and that a $70 million award may be insufficient to deter infringements.
“Zimmer chose a high-risk/high-reward strategy of competing immediately and aggressively in the pulsed lavage market and opted to worry about the potential legal consequences later,” the judge wrote in a 58-page decision, according to Reuters. “Ultimately, however, the trial proofs demonstrated that this was not a close case.”
Monica Kendrick, a Zimmer spokeswoman, told Reuters on Thursday the company made changes to its Pulsavac Plus line after the jury verdict, and believes the products it now sells are “outside the scope” of the injunction.
Zimmer plans to file an appear challenging the earlier jury verdict as well as the judge’s ruling.