<p>作者：Mike Scarcella</p>
<p>華盛頓，12 月 22 日（路透社）-</p>
<p>貝克頓·迪金森（Becton Dickinson，BDX.N）被一家競爭對手的醫療設備製造商起訴，指控其在美國外科疝氣網市場上阻礙競爭，導致患者和醫療提供者支付更高的價格。</p>
<p>該訴訟由 Tela Bio Inc（TELA.O）於週五在費城的聯邦法院提起，聲稱貝克頓·迪金森利用其在兩個關鍵產品類別——永久疝氣網和可吸收疝氣網——的主導地位，排除 Tela Bio 的 OviTex 產品。</p>
<p>根據訴訟，疝氣修復手術是全國範圍內最常見的手術之一，每年金額達到 120 億美元。</p>
<p>疝氣網每年用於超過 150 萬次手術，以增強虛弱的組織。永久網由合成材料製成，廣泛用於大多數手術，而外科醫生通常在更復雜的修復中使用可吸收網。Tela Bio 在可吸收網市場上與貝克頓·迪金森競爭。</p>
<p>總部位於賓夕法尼亞州的 Tela Bio 指控貝克頓·迪金森違反反壟斷法，懲罰醫院和其他醫療系統購買 Tela Bio 的產品，並使用長期合同將購買者鎖定為僅從貝克頓·迪金森購買。</p>
<p>貝克頓·迪金森尚未立即回應置評請求。</p>
<p>Tela Bio 表示，它在 2016 年推出了其競爭對手的可吸收網，且價格低於貝克頓·迪金森的產品。Tela Bio 表示，它已經損失了大量收入，並要求法院判給其未指明的賠償，併發布促進競爭的法院命令。</p>
<p>貝克頓·迪金森面臨全國範圍內關於其疝氣網產品的訴訟。</p>
<p>該公司去年在州和聯邦法院達成和解。具體條款未披露，但貝克頓·迪金森當時表示，金額包括其為產品責任訴訟預留的 “絕大多數”</p>
<p>17 億美元。該公司並未承認任何不當行為。</p>
<p>Tela Bio 表示，針對貝克頓·迪金森的其他數萬起疝氣網訴訟仍在待決中。</p>
<p>該案件為 Tela Bio Inc 訴貝克頓·迪金森公司等，案件編號：美國賓夕法尼亞東區地方法院，2:25-cv-07189。</p>
<p>原告律師：Derek Ho（Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &amp; Frederick）；Jeffrey Berhold（Jeffrey L. Berhold, P.C.）；Richard Placey（Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &amp; Rhoads）</p>
<p>被告律師：尚未出現</p>
<p>閲讀更多：</p>
<p>貝克頓·迪金森同意和解約 38,000 起疝氣網訴訟</p>
<p>羅德島陪審團裁定貝克頓·迪金森在疝氣網審判中支付 480 萬美元</p>

TELA

<p>Tela Bio Inc 起訴 Becton Dickinson，指控其壟斷美國疝氣網市場，導致價格上漲。訴訟稱 Becton Dickinson 利用其市場主導地位排除 Tela Bio 的 OviTex 產品，違反了反壟斷法。Tela Bio 尋求賠償和法院命令以促進競爭。Becton Dickinson 之前曾因疝氣網產品面臨訴訟，目前仍有許多訴訟待決</p>

<p>By Mike Scarcella</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Mike Scarcella</p>
</div><p>WASHINGTON, Dec 22 (Reuters) -</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>華盛頓，12 月 22 日（路透社）-</p>
</div><p>Becton Dickinson (BDX.N) has been sued by a rival medical device manufacturer for allegedly thwarting competition in the U.S. market for surgical hernia mesh and causing patients and care providers to pay higher prices.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>貝克頓·迪金森（Becton Dickinson，BDX.N）被一家競爭對手的醫療設備製造商起訴，指控其在美國外科疝氣網市場上阻礙競爭，導致患者和醫療提供者支付更高的價格。</p>
</div><p>The by Tela Bio Inc (TELA.O) , filed on Friday in the federal court in Philadelphia, claims Becton Dickinson leveraged its dominance in two key product categories — permanent hernia mesh and resorbable hernia mesh — to exclude Tela Bio’s OviTex product.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>該訴訟由 Tela Bio Inc（TELA.O）於週五在費城的聯邦法院提起，聲稱貝克頓·迪金森利用其在兩個關鍵產品類別——永久疝氣網和可吸收疝氣網——的主導地位，排除 Tela Bio 的 OviTex 產品。</p>
</div><p>Hernia repairs are among the most widely performed operations nationwide, amounting to $12 billion annually, according to the lawsuit.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根據訴訟，疝氣修復手術是全國範圍內最常見的手術之一，每年金額達到 120 億美元。</p>
</div><p>Hernia mesh is used in more than 1.5 million surgeries annually to reinforce weakened tissue. Permanent mesh, made from synthetic materials, is used in most procedures, while surgeons often use resorbable mesh for more complex repairs. Tela Bio competes with Becton Dickinson in the market for resorbable mesh.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>疝氣網每年用於超過 150 萬次手術，以增強虛弱的組織。永久網由合成材料製成，廣泛用於大多數手術，而外科醫生通常在更復雜的修復中使用可吸收網。Tela Bio 在可吸收網市場上與貝克頓·迪金森競爭。</p>
</div><p>Pennsylvania-based Tela Bio alleges Becton Dickinson violated antitrust law by punishing hospitals and other healthcare systems for buying Tela Bio’s product and using long-term contracts to lock purchasers into buying solely from Becton Dickinson.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>總部位於賓夕法尼亞州的 Tela Bio 指控貝克頓·迪金森違反反壟斷法，懲罰醫院和其他醫療系統購買 Tela Bio 的產品，並使用長期合同將購買者鎖定為僅從貝克頓·迪金森購買。</p>
</div><p>Becton Dickinson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>貝克頓·迪金森尚未立即回應置評請求。</p>
</div><p>Tela Bio said it introduced its rival resorbable mesh in 2016and that it cost less than Becton Dickinson’s product. Tela Bio said it has lost substantial revenue and asked the court to award it unspecified damages and issue a court order fostering competition.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Tela Bio 表示，它在 2016 年推出了其競爭對手的可吸收網，且價格低於貝克頓·迪金森的產品。Tela Bio 表示，它已經損失了大量收入，並要求法院判給其未指明的賠償，併發布促進競爭的法院命令。</p>
</div><p>Becton Dickinson has faced nationwide litigation over its hernia mesh products.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>貝克頓·迪金森面臨全國範圍內關於其疝氣網產品的訴訟。</p>
</div><p>The company last year about in state and federal courts. The terms were not disclosed, but Becton Dickinson said at the time that the amountincluded a “large majority” of</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>該公司去年在州和聯邦法院達成和解。具體條款未披露，但貝克頓·迪金森當時表示，金額包括其為產品責任訴訟預留的 “絕大多數”</p>
</div><p>$1.7 billion the company had set aside</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>17 億美元。該公司並未承認任何不當行為。</p>
</div><p>for product liability litigation. The company did not admit any wrongdoing.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Tela Bio 表示，針對貝克頓·迪金森的其他數萬起疝氣網訴訟仍在待決中。</p>
</div><p>Tela Bio said tens of thousands of other hernia mesh lawsuits remain pending against Becton Dickinson.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>該案件為 Tela Bio Inc 訴貝克頓·迪金森公司等，案件編號：美國賓夕法尼亞東區地方法院，2:25-cv-07189。</p>
</div><p>The case is Tela Bio Inc v. Becton, Dickinson &amp; Co et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:25-cv-07189.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>原告律師：Derek Ho（Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &amp; Frederick）；Jeffrey Berhold（Jeffrey L. Berhold, P.C.）；Richard Placey（Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &amp; Rhoads）</p>
</div><p>For plaintiff: Derek Ho of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &amp; Frederick; Jeffrey Berhold of Jeffrey L. Berhold, P.C.; and Richard Placey of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &amp; Rhoads</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>被告律師：尚未出現</p>
</div><p>For defendants: No appearances yet</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>閲讀更多：</p>
</div><p>Read more:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>貝克頓·迪金森同意和解約 38,000 起疝氣網訴訟</p>
</div><p>Becton Dickinson agrees to settle about 38,000 hernia mesh suits</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>羅德島陪審團裁定貝克頓·迪金森在疝氣網審判中支付 480 萬美元</p>
</div><p>R.I. jury orders Becton Dickinson to pay $4.8 mln in hernia mesh trial</p>

醫療器械製造商 Becton Dickinson 因涉嫌壟斷疝氣網片市場而被起訴