A PYMNTS Company

Biosense Webster Files Motion to Dismiss Antitrust $442M Verdict

By  |  July 8, 2025

Johnson & Johnson’s Biosense Webster subsidiary has filed a motion with a federal court in Central California requesting a judgment as a matter of law to overturn a recent jury verdict that found the company liable for antitrust violations. According to a statement filed on July 3, Biosense Webster challenges the jury’s conclusion, arguing that the evidence presented did not support the finding of anticompetitive conduct.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The case stems from claims made by Scottsdale, Arizona-based Innovative Health, which accused Biosense Webster of maintaining a monopoly on cardiac mapping catheters through tying arrangements and other exclusionary tactics. The jury had sided with Innovative Health, ruling that Johnson & Johnson violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and California’s Cartwright Act. Last month, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna tripled the damages awarded to Innovative Health, raising the total to $442 million under provisions allowed by federal antitrust law.

    In its motion for summary judgment, Biosense Webster contends that the jury’s verdict was not reasonable based on the evidence. Per a statement included in the filing, the company argues that Innovative Health’s case relied heavily on the premise that Biosense Webster held market power in a separate market for clinical support services—a market the company says was never established. Furthermore, Biosense Webster asserts that it provided these clinical support services free of charge.

    Read more: Judge Triples Antitrust Damages Against J&J MedTech

    The statement continues, emphasizing that Innovative Health’s claim hinged on allegations that Biosense Webster charged excessively high prices for its original equipment manufacturer (OEM) catheters in single-brand catheter markets. However, Biosense Webster argues that no evidence was shown at trial indicating that it set supracompetitive prices. Instead, the company maintains the pricing was competitive and that product quality improved continuously.

    Meanwhile, Innovative Health’s legal team has responded to a separate motion related to the case, urging the court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent Biosense Webster from continuing its alleged anticompetitive behavior. According to a statement from Innovative Health’s lawyers, Johnson & Johnson’s Biosense Webster is a proven monopolist, and requiring the plaintiff to repeatedly engage in litigation would undermine the protective intent of the Sherman Act. The response stresses the importance of injunctive relief to halt ongoing or threatened violations of antitrust laws.

    Source: Mass Device