A California court has ordered Medtronic to pay surgical device rival Applied Medical nearly $382 million in damages after determining that the medical technology giant engaged in monopolistic conduct within the market for bipolar electrosurgical devices.

Applied Medical filed a lawsuit in February 2023 alleging that Medtronic and certain hospital group purchasing organizations (GPOs) had contracts that favored the procurement source. The lawsuit alleged that the contracts defined Medtronic as the “sole source” of GPOs for advanced bipolar electrosurgical devices, namely the company’s LigaSure device for cutting tissue and fusing blood vessels during laparoscopic surgery procedures. Applied Medical sells a competing device called the Voyant.

Meanwhile, with contractual mandates with the GPOs to buy only LigaSure devices, the suit alleged that hospitals faced “financial penalties” and other burdens under those contracts if they circumvented the GPOs. A Los Angeles jury agreed with Applied Medical’s position. The court found that Medtronic had been using restrictive contracts with health care providers. After the verdict, Applied Medical confirmed that it will seek injunctive relief to prohibit Medtronic from enforcing the restrictions.

“This is not just a legal victory for Applied; it’s a validation of fair competition,” Gary Johnson, president of the Advanced Energy Group and Applied Medical’s representative throughout the trial, said in a Feb. 6 statement.

“We believe this decision marks a turning point for hospitals and healthcare providers struggling to dismantle complex contractual barriers that have long prevented them from accessing innovation, choice and value,” Johnson continued.

Medical device network has reached out to Medtronic for its take on the court ruling.

During the proceeding, Applied Medical emphasized that it was prevented from competing for hospital business with its equivalent Voyant device and could not thrive because of these agreements. In addition, the company alleged that Medtronic also had packaging practices that further stifled competition.

Aside from bipolar devices, Applied noted that Medtronic had a much larger business in other surgical products, but allegedly conditioned discounts for those products on the hospital also purchasing Medtronic’s bipolar devices.

According to Applied, because it did not market these other products, it could not match Medtronic’s bundled discounts and therefore could not “compete in the bipolar device market, even though it offers a better product.” court documents indicated.

Medtronic is far from the only big medtech player to have been found in violation of US antitrust laws.

In May 2025, a court ruled in favor of innovative health in an antitrust lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) subsidiary Biosense Webster. Innovative received $147 million in damages.

In the M&A space, recently the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). scrapped Edwards Lifesciences’ plans to acquire JenaValvethe developer of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement device to treat aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR). Citing anti-competitive concerns in the nascent TAVR-AR market, the District of Columbia Court granted the FTC’s injunctive relief motion in January 2026.

Elsewhere, the FTC also sued GTCR to block its proposed $627 million merger of critical medical device coatings maker Surmodics in March 2025 and filed an injunction motion, again citing concerns of anticompetitive activity. However, in November 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied that motion.

“Medtronic ordered to pay $382 million in anticompetitive surgical device lawsuit” was originally created and published by Medical device networka trademark owned by GlobalData.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to be advice on which you should rely, and we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, either express or implied, as to its accuracy or completeness. You should obtain professional or specialist advice before taking or refraining from any action based on the content of our site.