SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D.C. 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
February 13, 2002
-----------------
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC.
----------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Minnesota 0-8672 41-1276891
--------- ------ ----------
(State or other (Commission (IRS Employer
jurisdiction of File Number) Identification No.)
incorporation)
One Lillehei Plaza, St. Paul, MN 55117
-------------------------------- -----
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(651) 483-2000
--------------
Registrant's telephone number including area code
Not applicable
--------------
Former name or former address, if changed since last report
-1-
Item 5. OTHER EVENTS
ST. JUDE ANNOUNCES COURT RULING IN GUIDANT PATENT LITIGATION
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2002, Judge David F. Hamilton of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled on all of the post trial
motions filed by the parties in the patent lawsuit Guidant and related parties
brought against St. Jude Medical, Inc. (the "Company" or "St. Jude"). The full
text of Judge Hamilton's 186 page opinion can be accessed on the internet at:
www.insd.uscourts.gov/opinions/ip961718.pdf.
Two U.S. patents ('472 and '288) relating to implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICDs) were the subject of the trial. On July 3, 2001, the jury
found that the '472 patent was valid and infringed, and awarded Guidant and the
other plaintiffs $140 million in damages. The jury found that the '288 patent
was valid but not infringed. Judge Hamilton's February 13, 2002, opinion
overturns the jury's verdict in many respects, including finding that both
patents are invalid. As a result of the various rulings, the court concluded
that St. Jude is not responsible for any damages, and entered judgment in favor
of St. Jude.
The court ruled as follows:
1. St. Jude's motion to find claims 1 and 18 of the '472 patent invalid
for failure to comply with the written description requirement of the patent
laws was granted.
2. St. Jude's motion to find claims 1 and 18 of the '472 patent invalid
for obviousness-type double patenting was granted.
3. St. Jude's motion to find claims 1 and 18 of the '472 patent invalid
for obviousness was denied.
4. St. Jude's motion to find as a matter of law that claim 18 of the
'472 patent was not infringed was granted.
5. St. Jude's motion to find as a matter of law that claim 1 of the
'472 patent was not infringed was denied.
6. St. Jude's motion that claims 4 and 13 of the '288 patent were
invalid because of a violation of the "best mode" requirement of the patent law
was granted.
7. St. Jude's motion to invalidate claims 4 and 13 of the '288 patent
for obviousness was granted.
-2-
8. St. Jude's motion that the '288 patent should be unenforceable
because of inequitable conduct was denied.
9. The court granted, in part, St. Jude's motion for sanctions in
connection with misconduct by Guidant subsidiary, CPI, and one of plaintiffs'
key expert witnesses. Although the court denied St. Jude's request to strike the
testimony of plaintiffs' key expert witness, it ruled that St. Jude would be
entitled to a new trial to remedy unfairness in the first trial in the event
other rulings of the trial court were reversed on appeal. In addition, should a
new trial be necessary in the aftermath of an appeal, the court ruled that
Guidant would be obligated to compensate St. Jude for certain of the expenses
St. Jude incurred in the first trial. The court also invited St. Jude to
petition the court for other expenses and fees it incurred as a result of
misconduct in the first trial.
10. CPI's motion for a new trial on whether the '288 patent was
infringed was denied.
11. St. Jude's motion for a new trial on damages was conditionally
granted. (A new trial will only be necessary if certain rulings of the trial
court are reversed on appeal.)
12. The court denied CPI's motion for a new trial on damages.
13. Given its entry of judgment in favor of St. Jude, the court did not
rule on CPI's motion for prejudgment interest.
14. The court "conditionally" granted many of St. Jude's motions for a
new trial on various issues. If Guidant appeals and the Court of Appeals were to
affirm the rulings of the trial court, then no new trial will be necessary.
However, if the Court of Appeals were to reverse the trial judge on certain
issues in connection with an appeal, then the court's conditional ruling means
that the trial judge has ruled a new trial should occur on these various issues.
St. Jude expects that Guidant will appeal Judge Hamilton's decision.
-3-
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC.
Date: February 14, 2002 By: /s/ John C. Heinmiller
--------------------------
John C. Heinmiller
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
-4-