But that brings up bigger questions, has anyone seen any retrospective data on the efficacy of these products? Is there a selection criteria? Does anyone have a minimally invasive technique utilizing dilators? Is this product Neuro or Orthocentric? It seems that something is brewing within this product segment based on the multitude of e-mails that we are receiving. So TSB wants to know, what have our readers heard on the street, and who is the company that is attempting to make all this noise?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Facet Fusion Wars: Fact or Fiction
Lately, TSB has received numerous e-mails from our readers claiming that something is brewing in the facet fusion technology arena. Followers have stated that there is a facet fusion company that has retained a litigation law firm that is sending warning letters to distributors claiming that the products they are selling violate their client's patents. If so, do these patents relate to the shape of the allograft? If word on the street is true, TSB finds it rather peculiar that someone would employ a litigation law firm to send out patent infringemnet letters at roughly a $150 cost per letter in order to disrupt the competitions sales.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have not heard of this but TSB's sources are prety good so I'm sure that where there is smoke there is fire. Is this the new business model for emerging spine companies? I.e. enter the market with lawyers and law suits instead of marketing and clinical data (and a few well placed consulting agreements)?
ReplyDeleteIt seems litigation has been filed against Minsurg Corporation (Trufuse) from Nufix (Nufix) and Frontier Devices (Fusio). Proof of this can be found at the following links:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33778138/Nufix-et-al-v-minSURG-et-al
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=60537
According to the lawsuits, Minsurg is accused of sending out warning letters to both Plaintiffs' distributors. There are numerous other allegations against Minsurg. Interesting reading to say the least, but I have never seen anything like this occur in any space in medical device.
The patent received by Minsurg on May, 4, 2010 seems, in my opinion, to be rather narrow in scope.
It appears that minSurg is being taken to the cleaners by their litigation attorneys. They are sending letters to just about anybody that has ever sold a spinal implant. Talk about an expensive fishing expedition-hahaha- They cannot nor will they ever bring suit against all the letter recipients as this case is so weak its a joke. TSB is correct, these firms usually charge by the letter-hahahahaha................
ReplyDeleteIt is all based on the patent they received for percutaneous facet fusing using an arthroscopic
ReplyDeleteapproach, whatever that means. Most people are doing the facet fusions "Open" so the patent is a waste of time and all over the board in the wording. Seems to be a joke!
Such a lawsuite seems to me to be the equivalent of "rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic", This is a technology with no clinical foundation or supporting peer reviewed data. It will always be a sham fusion surgery technique and impant, that is adopted only by the fringe of spinal care providers. No reputable company can build a business model on that.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why they are not going after Bacterin for the fourth time?
ReplyDeleteStill to what avail is the cpt codes these companies gave us to bill?? They first said yes use these then all of a sudden we cant tell you that anymore, you have to do your due diligence on the correct coding??? What the hell is that about?
ReplyDeleteMy observation on this is:
ReplyDelete1) the Minsurg patent infringement lawsuits against everybody that sells a facet device is on very shaky ground since the patent clearly only makes claim on percutaneous procedures, which are rarely ever performed
2) Minsurg bit off more than they could chew by sending the letters and interfering with other company's business. Nearly every one of the companies they sued, has counter sued and Minsurg probably doesn't have the cash to fight them. Nor will they win any patent litigation on such a weak patent.
3) It is interesting, and predictable, that the big box companies all called it a sham procedure in the beginning, but now they are all selling their own version (MDT, NUVA, etc.) But somehow, crap like Mystique, PEEK rods and dynamic rods were their big focus when they had exactly the same amount of science behind them (none).
This is interesting discourse among obvious competitors. About 50,000 cases later and this is a fringe procedure with no clinical evidence? What's new here is the industry blatantly violating intellectual property. Bad trend.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Oct 1 posting, it seems peculiar that so many posts say the same negative things...I sniff a rat! Oh, and by the way, many types of medical advances did not have mountains of data behind them to begin with, how can humans progress if they are too afraid to try new things? And it must be a great technique or so many people would not have copied it (including former employees of Minsurg who work at the other companies in the suit). But I will say I have enjoyed reading the mindless/uneducated chatter today!
ReplyDelete