California Federal Jury Finds Medtronic Liable for Antitrust Violations Over Surgical Devices, Awards $382 Million
A federal jury in California has ordered Medtronic to pay $382 million after finding that the company unlawfully monopolized the market for blood vessel sealing devices used in surgery. The verdict, returned Thursday in federal court in Santa Ana, California, found that Medtronic violated federal antitrust law through pricing and contracting practices tied to its LigaSure surgical device.
The lawsuit was brought by Applied Medical Resources, a privately held rival that sells a competing vessel sealing product known as Voyant. Applied Medical argued that Medtronic used its market position to block competition by selling LigaSure below cost and by conditioning discounts on purchases of other Medtronic products, making it financially risky for hospitals to buy from competitors.
Medtronic is one of the world’s largest medical technology companies, supplying hospitals with a wide range of surgical tools, implants, and monitoring systems. Its size allows it to offer bundled pricing across multiple product lines, a practice that Applied Medical said crossed legal boundaries when used to pressure hospitals away from competing devices.
Jurors agreed with Applied Medical’s claims and awarded $382 million in damages. An attorney for the company said the jury’s findings allow the trial judge to consider increasing the award under federal law, though no ruling on enhanced damages has been made. Medtronic said it will appeal, stating that surgeons choose LigaSure based on performance and that its contracts are lawful and common in the industry.
The dispute centered on how Medtronic structured its contracts with hospitals and health systems. According to the complaint, Medtronic offered steep discounts on LigaSure only if hospitals committed to buying a broader portfolio of Medtronic products. Applied Medical argued that hospitals feared losing discounts across their supply agreements if they purchased competing tools, effectively steering purchasing decisions.
Applied Medical also challenged Medtronic’s use of commitment contracts, arguing they functioned as exclusive dealing arrangements. While the contracts did not explicitly ban hospitals from buying competitors’ products, the lawsuit claimed they made switching suppliers impractical due to the financial consequences tied to bundled discounts.
Medtronic disputed those allegations at trial. The company argued its contracts were not exclusive, did not require fixed purchase volumes, and did not prevent hospitals from buying competing devices. Medtronic also told the court that Applied Medical failed to show that any hospital was actually blocked from purchasing a rival product.
The jury’s verdict rests on federal antitrust law designed to prevent companies with substantial market power from excluding competitors through unfair conduct. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, it is not illegal for a company to be large or successful. The law is violated when dominance is maintained through practices that restrict competition rather than through product quality or innovation.
One issue the jury considered was below-cost pricing, also known as predatory pricing. This occurs when a company sells a product for less than it costs to produce to weaken or eliminate competitors. While low prices can benefit buyers, antitrust law draws a line when pricing is used to secure long-term control of a market by driving rivals out.
The case also involved bundling and exclusive dealing. Bundling refers to tying discounts on one product to the purchase of others. Exclusive dealing involves arrangements that discourage customers from buying from competitors. These practices are not automatically illegal, but courts examine whether they shut competitors out of a substantial portion of the market and limit meaningful choice.
Applied Medical argued that Medtronic’s scale amplified the impact of these practices. Hospitals often rely on centralized purchasing and long-term supply agreements, which can make bundled pricing structures difficult to unwind. The jury found that the combined effect of Medtronic’s pricing and contracting practices harmed competition in the market for vessel sealing devices.
Federal antitrust law allows courts to impose enhanced penalties when juries find unlawful monopolization. In cases like this, damages may be enhanced and multiplied by three to deter conduct that restricts competition and limits choice in markets dominated by large manufacturers.
