Nevro announces plans to appeal jury decision in spinal cord stimulation case


nevro patent infringementsNevro Corporation has provided an update on its position following a Delaware jury’s decision to award Boston Scientific US$20 million over patent infringements. The jury found that Nevro infringed two Boston Scientific patents (7,891,085 and 8,019,439) directed to ways of manufacturing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) leads, which Nevro obtains from a third-party supplier, according to a press release from the company. 

“We disagree with the finding by the jury and plan to appeal,” said Kashif Rashid, Nevro’s general counsel.

Two other Boston Scientific lead patents (8,646,172 and 8,650,747) were not infringed, the jury also determined. The Nevro press release states: “This decision has no commercial implications or would otherwise impose any restrictions on any current or future Nevro products, and the jury award is an amount of money that will not have a material impact on Nevro’s business.”

In addition, Nevro’s chairman and CEO, Keith Grossman, said: “It is important to put this lawsuit into the proper context. The suit regarding lead patents by Boston Scientific was in retaliation for the 2016 lawsuit Nevro filed to stop Boston Scientific from launching a 10kHz spinal cord stimulation system, which would blatantly and directly infringe Nevro’s core intellectual property.

“This lawsuit has absolutely no implications on Nevro’s commercial efforts for current or planned products, and is directed to manufacturing methods implemented by our third-party supplier. Nevro will continue to be the exclusive provider of HFX with 10kHz therapy, which the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] determined to be superior to Boston Scientific’s SCS therapy.”

On 14 December 2020, Nevro and Boston Scientific announced that the two parties had agreed to the dismissal of all claims in a patent infringement case filed by Nevro against Boston Scientific in a California district court. This case also centred around the two companies’ respective SCS offerings—although both stated at the time that this dismissal would not impact the ongoing patent infringement case in Delaware.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here