Biosense appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the ruling. But experts agree that the court should uphold the May 2025 verdict—and have submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of Innovative health before the Ninth Circuit.

AMDR’s summary of these amicus briefs explores their positions on the case, key quotes, and significance. The following groups and individuals have submitted:

• American Antitrust Institute (brief)
• Antitrust law professors (brief)
• AMDR (brief)
• Congressman Neal Dunn (brief)
• Open Markets Institute (brief)
• U.S. Public Interest Research Group (brief)

These leading experts in law, Congress, reprocessing, and consumer rights approach the case from different angles, but their overall perspective is consistent: they all dispute Biosense’s claims, condemn the harmful impact of its actions, defend regulated SUD reprocessing, and urge the court to uphold the verdict for the sake of U.S. healthcare and fair market principles.

“Biosense’s monopoly did not result from ‘a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.’…Its exclusionary acts…were mutually reinforcing and ‘none…made Biosense’s products better.’ Rather, these tactics excluded products of higher quality from the market.” ~U.S. PIRG

“Biosense’s conduct harmed hospitals and patients as well because it excluded a lower-priced option that could have lowered health care costs and freed up capital for other uses. Reprocessing has been shown to lower prices and extends the lifespan of expensive medical devices.” ~Open Markets Institute

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any court of appeals has ever taken Biosense’s position.” ~Antitrust law professors

The ongoing appeals process will determine whether this case will be a lasting victory for hospitals, patients, and fair market principles—or whether large corporations can continue to use their dominance to shut out innovation and competition. AMDR will continue to update this page as the appeals process progresses.

All court documents linked on this page or in AMDR’s materials are unsealed and publicly accessible via PACER. AMDR has abridged quotes for readability, and provided citations to where unabridged quotes may be found. Page numbers in the endnotes correspond to those of the cited PDF.