直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

James R. Barney

Smith & Nephew Infringed Wound Treatment IP: Jury

March 10, 2010

Law360

A federal jury has found that Smith & Nephew PLC’s negative pressure wound therapy devices violate two patents held by Kinetic Concepts Inc., and has awarded the medical technology company more than $1 million. The jury returned a verdict that the patents covering foam dressing used on vacuum-pressure systems for treating wounds were infringed by the London-based orthopedic device company’s Renasys-F kits, and that they were not valid. The patents are owned by Wake Forest University Health Sciences and licensed exclusively to Kinetic. Kinetic, which is represented in this matter by Finnegan, is planning to seek an injunction in post-trial proceedings to stop Smith & Nephew from further infringement.

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Industries

醫療器材和診斷

Related News

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Commentary

Catching Up with Hope Shimabuku

September 29, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027

September 24, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower

September 23, 2026

Commentary

New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret

September 21, 2026

Commentary

Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say

September 17, 2026

Commentary

Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?

September 16, 2026

Commentary

Bloomberg Law Q&A with Finnegan IP Lawyer Christian Hurt

September 11, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP