Turns out “sell it cheap and force everyone to buy your other stuff too” isn’t just an aggressive sales strategy — sometimes it’s a federal antitrust violation with a nine-figure price tag attached.
A federal jury in California has found Medtronic, the world’s largest medical device company, liable for illegally monopolizing the market for a specialized type of surgical tool, ordering it to pay rival Applied Medical $381.7 million in damages.
The Verdict, By the Numbers
- $381,705,005 — the exact damages figure the jury awarded Applied Medical, widely rounded to $382 million in headlines
- 10 days — the length of the jury trial
- 3 laws — the jury found Medtronic violated the federal Sherman Act, the federal Clayton Act, and California’s own Cartwright Act, all in a single unanimous verdict
- February 2023 — when Applied Medical originally filed the lawsuit
- February 5, 2026 — the date the jury delivered its verdict, roughly three years later
The Products at the Center of the Case
This entire fight comes down to a surgical tool called an advanced bipolar vessel sealing device — essentially, an instrument surgeons use to cut tissue and seal blood vessels shut during operations, most commonly in laparoscopic surgery.
Medtronic sells its version under the name LigaSure. Applied Medical, a privately held, California-based competitor, sells a rival product called Voyant. According to the lawsuit, these two products go head-to-head directly for hospital contracts — and that competition is exactly what Applied Medical says Medtronic tried to choke off.
What Medtronic Was Actually Accused Of
Applied Medical’s core argument centered on two specific business practices:
- Below-cost pricing — Applied alleged Medtronic sold its LigaSure devices to hospitals at prices below what it actually cost to make them, a practice sometimes called “predatory pricing,” specifically to undercut Applied Medical’s competing product
- Bundling and exclusive-dealing contracts — Applied alleged Medtronic offered hospitals and hospital purchasing groups steep discounts, but only if they agreed to also purchase other, unrelated Medtronic products, or agreed to make Medtronic their “sole source” for these devices entirely
The combined effect, according to Applied Medical, was that hospitals found it financially risky or impractical to buy from any competitor at all — even if they wanted to — because doing so could cost them discounts across an entire portfolio of other Medtronic products.
Medtronic’s Defense
Medtronic didn’t take these allegations lying down. At trial, the company argued that its contracts with hospitals were not exclusive, didn’t require hospitals to commit to fixed purchase volumes, and didn’t actually prevent any hospital from also buying a competing device if it wanted to. Medtronic’s legal team specifically argued that Applied Medical failed to identify even a single hospital that was truly blocked from purchasing Applied’s product because of Medtronic’s contracts.
Ahead of the trial, Medtronic had also publicly called the allegations “baseless” and said it intended to fight the case.
A Notable Voice From the Sidelines: The FTC
This case attracted attention well beyond the two companies directly involved. Back in July 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief — a formal “friend of the court” filing from an outside party with relevant expertise — specifically addressing how courts should evaluate bundling and exclusive-dealing antitrust claims like this one.
Notably, the FTC didn’t take an official position on which company should win the case itself. But it did specifically push back on the legal standard Medtronic was arguing courts should use, warning that adopting Medtronic’s preferred framework could make it harder to bring similar antitrust cases in the future.
What Applied Medical Had to Say
Following the verdict, a spokesperson for Applied Medical, referred to in press coverage simply as Johnson, credited the jury’s thoroughness for the win:
“The jury heard an extensive evidentiary record supporting its unanimous verdict.”
Applied Medical also made clear the fight isn’t over just because the damages have been awarded. The company said its next priority is pursuing a permanent injunction — a court order that would formally block Medtronic from continuing to enforce the bundling and exclusive-dealing arrangements the jury just ruled were illegal, so that hospitals can start freely choosing between competing products going forward.
What Happens Next
Medtronic has confirmed it plans to appeal the verdict, meaning the roughly $382 million figure isn’t necessarily final just yet. Interestingly, despite the size of the ruling, financial reporters noted the verdict didn’t appear to meaningfully move Medtronic’s stock price — a sign that investors may see this as a manageable cost for a company of Medtronic’s scale, rather than a existential threat to its business.
The Bottom Line
A jury spent 10 days working through the specifics of hospital purchasing contracts, pricing strategies, and antitrust law, and landed on a clear, unanimous conclusion: Medtronic crossed the line from aggressive competition into illegal monopolization. With an appeal already planned and a request for injunctive relief still pending, this case is likely to keep shaping how bundled healthcare contracts are scrutinized for years to come.
Sources referenced:
Reuters – “Medtronic owes $382 million to medical device rival, antitrust lawsuit, US jury says”
Fierce Biotech – “Medtronic hit with $382M antitrust ruling over surgical device monopoly”
MobiHealthNews – “Medtronic ordered to pay almost $382M to Applied Medical for antitrust ruling”
