Jury Returns Verdict in VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc.’ Patent Infringement Lawsuit With Total Vein Systems and biolitec Finding Some Patent Claims Invalid and Some Infringed

HOUSTON, Dec. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- After a lengthy seven-week trial in VNUS’ lawsuit against Total Vein Solutions, LLC d/b/a Total Vein Systems (“TVS”) and biolitec, Inc. (“biolitec”), a federal jury in San Francisco has returned a verdict finding invalidity of many of the claims of VNUS’ patents, and infringement of others.

“TVS agrees with the jury’s findings that certain claims in VNUS’ ‘084, ‘803 and ‘355 patents were invalid as “obvious,” but is displeased with the jury’s verdict of infringement and damages.” Tyri Schiek, President and co-owner of TVS commented, “It has always been and remains our position that TVS does not infringe anyone’s patents by selling unpatented, standard medical supplies. We believe all of the VNUS method patents are invalid.” David Centanni, co-owner and CEO of TVS, added that “we disagree with the jury’s conclusion on infringement and think the jury’s findings on damages were grossly inflated. TVS will continue business as usual and is confident that those findings of the jury that were in error will be overturned, either by the trial court or at the appellate level. Total Vein remains dedicated to providing the highest quality medical products to physicians and clinics at fair and equitable prices.”

VNUS sued TVS, among others, in 2008, for indirect patent infringement, by way of contributory and induced infringement, relating to TVS’ sales of laser fibers, laser consoles, introducer kits and procedure packs. The patents at issue do not cover a particular product or device, but instead claim a method of performing endovenous ablation with vein compression.

TVS has steadfastly denied that its sales of unpatented products amount to infringing conduct. TVS also noted that the patents do not adequately enable doctors to perform the methods using laser or microwave energy modalities without “undue experimentation,” despite claiming such. Moreover, TVS and biolitec argued that a variety of publications show that the same endovenous ablation methods existed long before, and that VNUS’ claimed procedure is merely an obvious variant of such earlier described methods.

TVS expects that it will file all necessary motions in the trial court to overturn the portions of the jury’s decision that were in error, and will appeal where necessary.

SOURCE Total Vein Solutions, LLC d/b/a Total Vein Systems