Company: BSX
Filing Date: 2025-11-03
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000885725-25-000050
Chunk: 72

Company: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP
Filing Date: 2025-11-03
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 72
---
 United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On September 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the UT’s Petition for Certiorari. UT proceeded with its case against the Company in Delaware. In January 2023, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether the one UT patent still asserted in the case was valid and whether it was infringed by the Company. On January 31, 2023, a jury concluded that UT’s patent was valid and willfully infringed by the Company, and awarded UT $42 million in damages. Following the trial, UT filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest and enhanced damages. The Company filed a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law in its favor or alternatively a new trial. On June 5, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement, but otherwise denied the Company’s motions. The Court also denied UT’s motion for enhanced damages, awarded approximately $7 million in pre-judgment interest, and awarded post-judgment interest. On July 3, 2024, UT and the Company each filed a notice of appeal.Upon the Company’s acquisition of Axonics on November 15, 2024, the Company assumed responsibility for all litigation pending against Axonics. On September 18, 2023, Axonics commenced an arbitration dispute against the Al Mann Foundation (AMF), in response to which AMF asserted multiple claims against Axonics. This arbitration will resolve, among other things, whether AMF terminated its licensing agreement with Axonics and whether Axonics owes royalties to AMF for its non-rechargeable sacral neuromodulation products. This dispute is scheduled for an arbitration hearing in December 2025.

29

Table of Contents

Product Liability LitigationMultiple product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against us, predominantly in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages based on allegations of personal injury associated with the use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products, including design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and