Innovative Health Wins $442M Antitrust Verdict vs Biosense

Case Background

In 2019, Innovative Health LLC, an Arizona-based medical device reprocessor, sued Biosense Webster, Inc., a California-based manufacturer of cardiac mapping systems and catheters. The dispute centred on the CARTO 3 cardiac mapping system used in electrophysiology studies to diagnose and treat heart rhythm disorders. Innovative claimed Biosense used its market dominance to unlawfully restrict competition in the sale of high-density mapping catheters and ultrasound catheters, and in providing clinical support for the CARTO 3 system.

Innovative alleged that while both companies were cleared by the FDA to sell new or reprocessed versions of these catheters, Biosense’s business practices shut out reprocessed products from the market, depriving hospitals of lower-cost alternatives.

Cause

The Plaintiff accused Biosense of multiple antitrust violations, including monopolization, attempted monopolization, unlawful tying arrangements, and exclusive dealing under both the federal Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. Innovative claimed Biosense tied the sale of its catheters to its free clinical support program, used restrictive compatibility designs, and refused to support cases involving competitors’ reprocessed catheters.

Injury

Innovative stated that these practices locked it out of key hospital accounts, stifled its market share in the high-density mapping and ultrasound catheter markets, and caused substantial lost sales. The company argued that hospitals faced inflated prices for catheters and fewer choices, and that it was prevented from fairly competing despite having FDA clearance.

Damages

The Plaintiff sought monetary damages for lost profits and market opportunities, alleging nationwide sales losses in catheter markets worth hundreds of millions annually. At trial, the jury considered financial harm directly tied to the antitrust violations.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Innovative Health LLC

· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Eric Forister

Defendant(s): Biosense Webster, Inc.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Claims

Monopolization (Sherman Act § 2) – Innovative alleged Biosense maintained monopoly power in high-density mapping and ultrasound catheter markets by excluding competitors and controlling supply.

Attempted Monopolization (Sherman Act § 2) – Innovative claimed Biosense’s conduct aimed to preserve and extend its monopoly by targeting reprocessed catheter competitors.

Tying (Sherman Act § 1 & Cartwright Act) – The Plaintiff asserted Biosense tied clinical support for CARTO 3 to the purchase of its own catheters, coercing hospitals to buy from it exclusively.

Exclusive Dealing – Innovative alleged Biosense’s agreements and practices prevented hospitals from sourcing reprocessed catheters, locking up the market.

Defendant’s Position:
Biosense denied all allegations, asserting that its market success came from innovation and product quality, not exclusionary conduct. It argued hospitals were free to buy catheters from any source, that no contractual tying existed, and that compatibility restrictions were based on safety and performance standards. Biosense also contended there was no separate market for CARTO 3 clinical support and no evidence of anticompetitive harm.

Jury Verdict

On May 16, 2025, the jury found in favor of Innovative Health on four counts:

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (tying arrangement)
Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (monopolization)
Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (attempted monopolization)
Violation of Section 16720 of the Cartwright Act (tying arrangement)

The jury awarded Innovative Health $ 147,406,481 in damages. This sum reflected the losses attributed to Biosense’s unlawful conduct in restricting competition in the catheter markets for CARTO 3 systems. Under federal and California antitrust statutes, those damages are automatically trebled to $442,219,443.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com