In a major antitrust battle over cardiac catheter markets, Innovative Health LLC sued Biosense Webster, Inc. for monopolization, attempted monopolization, and unlawful tying under the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The case centered on Biosense’s CARTO 3 cardiac mapping system and its high-density mapping and ultrasound catheters. Innovative alleged Biosense tied clinical support to catheter purchases, blocked reprocessed competitors, and restricted hospital choices. On May 16, 2025, a California jury sided with Innovative on four counts, awarding $147,406,481 in damages, which are trebled by law to $442,219,443. The verdict underscores strict enforcement of antitrust rules in medical device markets and highlights the risks of exclusionary practices.

A Delaware jury delivered a mixed verdict in Regeneron’s antitrust suit against Amgen over PCSK9 cholesterol drugs Praluent and Repatha. Regeneron accused Amgen of using exclusionary bundling tactics to block Praluent’s market access and preserve Repatha’s monopoly. The jury found Amgen liable on some claims but awarded little or no damages, siding with Amgen on key issues and significantly limiting Regeneron’s recovery. The decision underscores the challenges of proving financial harm in complex pharmaceutical antitrust disputes.

Plaintiffs accused SmileDirectClub and Align Technology of anti-competitive practices that inflated aligner prices and limited consumer choice. The lawsuit claimed unlawful monopolization, market allocation, and unfair trade practices. Align denied wrongdoing but agreed to a $31.75 million nationwide settlement, providing compensation to U.S. consumers who purchased SmileDirectClub aligners between October 2017 and August 2022. The agreement released claims against Align while excluding SmileDirectClub.