Open Markets Institute Files Amicus Brief Defending Antitrust Verdict Against Biosense Webster for Exclusionary Conduct in Medical Device Market
“Healthy competition in healthcare markets is essential to lowering costs and improving outcomes for patients.” - OMI Policy Counsel Tara Pincock
WASHINGTON — Today, the Open Markets Institute filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting Innovative Health, LLC in Innovative Health v. Biosense Webster. The brief urges the court to uphold a jury verdict finding that Biosense Webster violated federal antitrust law by using its dominant position in the cardiac-mapping market to block competition from lower-cost medical device reprocessors.
The case centers on Biosense Webster’s CARTO cardiac-mapping system, which is used in hospitals nationwide to diagnose dangerous arrhythmias. In 2025, a federal jury found that Biosense illegally took over the lucrative catheter market. It specifically tied free clinical support services to the purchase of new CARTO catheters while simultaneously hoarding used catheters and implementing technical restrictions designed to prevent independent companies from refurbishing and reselling them. According to trial evidence cited in the brief, Biosense’s exclusionary conduct caused the market share of independent reprocessors to collapse from as high as 23 percent to just 1 percent. Innovative is one of the independent firms and in 2016 received FDA approval to reprocess used CARTO catheters and sell them to hospitals at roughly half the cost of new devices.
“Antitrust laws exist to stop dominant corporations from using monopoly power to shut down competition and raise costs for the public,” said Tara Pincock, policy counsel at the Open Markets Institute and co-author of the brief. “This case is about protecting hospitals, patients, and innovators from coercive conduct that blocks lower-cost alternatives and entrenches corporate control over essential medical technologies.”
The brief argues that the jury’s verdict is firmly grounded in longstanding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit. The courts have ruled that manufacturers can violate antitrust law by monopolizing and restraining trade in the markets for maintenance, repair, and parts. These “aftermarkets” are very lucrative for many manufacturers who have a powerful incentive to keep out independent rivals and maintain their power to exploit their customers.
Open Markets argues that Biosense’s conduct harmed not only Innovative Health, but also hospitals and patients by foreclosing access to lower-cost medical devices and suppressing competition that could reduce healthcare spending. National healthcare spending has risen from $1.32 trillion in 2000 to $5.28 trillion today, while American health outcomes continue to those in other developed nations.
The brief highlights evidence that medical device reprocessing lowers healthcare costs, extends the lifespan of expensive technologies, and supports broader “right-to-repair” principles increasingly recognized by courts and regulators.
“Dominant manufacturers should not be allowed to use technical restrictions and tying schemes to monopolize repair and replacement markets,” said Pincock. “Healthy competition in healthcare markets is essential to lowering costs and improving outcomes for patients.”
The Open Markets Institute’s brief asks the Ninth Circuit to affirm both the jury verdict and the permanent injunction entered by the district court.
The case is Innovative Health, LLC v. Biosense Webster, Inc., No. 25-6042, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
###