Smith & Nephew, Inc. (Tennessee)

Four-day conference to include appearance by VA's Under Secretary for Health Dr. Shereef Elnahal, 50+ cutting edge exhibits, and more WASHINGTON , Aug. 29, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Paralyzed Veterans of America today kicked off its 10th Healthcare Summit and Expo – a four-day conference comprised of attendees from over 100 acute care and rehabilitation hospitals and community care centers across the country, more than 75 renowned speakers, and 50 plus exhibitors – all specialized in the field of spinal injury and disease (SCI/D). Complete with workshops, break-out sessions, and PVA's Clinical Excellence Awards recognizing clinicians who have gone above and beyond in the care for Veterans and others living with paralysis, this year's Summit will also include a Department of Veterans Affairs update from their Under Secretary for Health Dr. Shereef Elnahal. "When Paralyzed Veterans of America started its Healthcare Summit & Expo in 2010, our goal was to bring the latest in research, technology, and best practices in the field of spinal cord injury and disorders directly to our health care workers," said Charles Brown, National President of PVA. "We remain committed to that goal, as well as to advancing education of MS and ALS, and to investing in VA and all clinicians who provide the best in specialized care to all Veterans and others living with paralysis." "We are so proud to be back with PVA again, this time at the Healthcare Summit and Expo," said Christopher Caggiano, National Director of Veterans Affairs and VERSAJET Systems at Smith&Nephew, Inc. "Supporting our nation's healthcare professionals and all those with mobility impairments, as well as helping them regain their independence and enhance their quality of life is not only what PVA's conference is all about but it is at the very heart of what drives Smith&Nephew, Inc." In 2021, more than 26,000 Veterans with a spinal cord injury received care from the VA. An additional 28,000+ Veterans with MS regularly receive care from the VA annually, while more than 1,000 Veterans are newly diagnosed with ALS each year. These are just a few stats facing our nation's Veterans and impacting today's healthcare system. They are also the reason PVA regularly hosts the Healthcare Summit & Expo. "Spinal cord injuries and neurological diseases can strike anyone at any time," continued Brown. "PVA has long helped veterans and others living with SCI/D, MS and ALS, and our Summit is an extension of that support. This event is much more than just another conference, it is lifeline for those with paralysis – supporting new therapies and treatments, finding a cure for paralysis, learning about advancements in care and pain management, and keeping pace with improvements in SCI/D, MS and ALS care and treatment." In March 2022, PVA created its first-ever MS Committee, a permanent committee of the Board of Directors – made up of eight PVA members from across the country who represent the everyday interests of veterans with MS. The committee acts as a voice on legislative issues concerning veterans with MS; provides first-hand input from its members with MS; puts out a weekly podcast on issues specific to those with MS; and serves as an expert resource for all veterans living with the disease. In addition to its new committee and advocacy efforts, PVA also partners with expert groups in the field of MS, including the National MS Society and the VA's Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence – both of whom will be in attendance at this year's Summit. Attended by VA physicians, nurses, therapists, and psychologists, as well as private health-care professionals, PVA's Summit is one of the largest and most sought-after healthcare conferences in the U.S. PVA is grateful to our generous sponsors for the support of this year's Healthcare Summit and Expo, which include Smith&Nephew, Inc., Biogen, Onward Medical Inc., Novartis, NMEDA, First Nation Group, and Quantum Stealth. Visit SummitPVA.org to learn more. About Paralyzed Veterans of America Paralyzed Veterans of America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and the only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated solely for the benefit and representation of veterans with spinal cord injury or diseases. The organization ensures veterans receive the benefits earned through service to our nation; monitors their care in VA spinal cord injury units; and funds research and education in the search for a cure and improved care for individuals with paralysis. As a life-long partner and advocate for veterans and all people with disabilities, PVA also develops training and career services, works to ensure accessibility in public buildings and spaces, and provides health and rehabilitation opportunities through sports and recreation. With more than 70 offices and 33 chapters, Paralyzed Veterans of America serves veterans, their families, and their caregivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Learn more at PVA.org. Contact: S. Oname Thompson [email protected] (703) 864-5980 cell SOURCE Paralyzed Veterans of America

DUBLIN, June 8, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Endoscopy Devices Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Product, by Application, by End Use, by Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, MEA), and Segment Forecasts, 2022-2030" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering. The global endoscopy devices market size is expected to reach USD 81.0 billion by 2030. The market is expected to expand at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.4% from 2022 to 2030. Growing adoption of minimally invasive endoscopic procedures by medical professionals to look into the esophagus, colon, and stomach and also its application to perform biopsies and sclerotherapy are some of the factors boosting the market growth. In addition, the increasing trend of adopting disposable endoscopes to reduce the chances of cross contaminations is also anticipated to fuel the growth of the market over the forecast years. In 2021, based on product, the endoscopy visualization systems segment accounted for the highest revenue share of 36.5% of the market. This is attributed to the growing adoption of High Definition (HD) visualization systems by medical professionals for better imaging results during endoscopic procedures. In addition, continuous technological advancements of endoscopy visualization systems for the treatment and diagnosis of complex health conditions such as cancer, functional gastrointestinal disorders, lung disorders, and urinary disorders also support segment growth. Based on application, the Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy segment dominated the market in 2021 in terms of revenue owing to the increasing burden of gastrointestinal diseases and the rising geriatric population. In addition, increasing recommendation by medical professionals to perform endoscopic procedures as the first line of diagnosis option for gastrointestinal disorders is also one of the major factors supporting the segment growth. The hospitals segment accounted for the highest revenue share of 48.1% in 2021. This is attributed due to the larger number of endoscopic procedures performed in the hospitals than in other end-use segments. In addition, favorable reimbursement policies and the high availability of government and private hospitals performing endoscopy procedures are some of the prominent factors anticipated to drive the segment growth. North America dominated the market in terms of the revenue share of 42.3% in 2021. The highest revenue share of this region is attributed due to the increasing adoption of advanced endoscopic devices and the high availability of modern healthcare facilities performing minimally invasive surgical procedures. In addition, growing functional gastrointestinal disorders and other chronic diseases such as cancer also are the major factors driving market growth in this region. Furthermore, the COVID19 pandemic has significantly impacted the market owing to the cancellation and postponement of elective procedures. Moreover, the fear of getting infected with the COVID-19 virus also reduced the number of surgical procedures which in turn led to the de-growth of the endoscopy devices adoption in 2020. For instance, according to a study published in the Arab Journal of Gastroenterology in 2020, the number of endoscopy procedures decreased about 50% during the COVID19 pandemic in the majority of countries all over the globe. Endoscopy Devices Market Report Highlights The market is anticipated to be valued at USD 81.0 billion by 2030 owing to the growing adoption of minimally invasive endoscopic procedures by medical professionals in comparison with open surgeries. The endoscopy visualization systems segment dominated with highest revenue share in 2021 owing to growing adoption of High Definition (HD) visualization systems by medical professionals for better imaging results during endoscopic procedures. In 2021, the Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy segment accounted for the highest revenue share owing to the growing burden of functional gastrointestinal diseases and rising geriatric population. Hospitals accounted for the highest revenue share of 48.1% in 2021, owing to favorable reimbursement policies and high availability of government and private hospitals performing endoscopy procedures. North America accounted for the largest revenue share of 42.3% in 2021, owing to increasing adoption of advanced endoscopy devices and high availability of modern healthcare facilities performing minimally invasive surgical procedures. Key Topics Covered: Chapter 1 Methodology and Scope Chapter 2 Executive Summary Chapter 3 Endoscopy Devices Market Variables, Trends & Scope 3.1 Market Lineage Outlook 3.1.1 Parent Market Outlook 3.1.2 Ancillary Market Outlook 3.2 Penetration And Growth Prospect Mapping 3.3 Industry Analysis 3.3.1 User Perspective Analysis 3.3.1.1 Consumer Behavior Analysis 3.3.1.2 Product Specifications 3.3.2 Key End-users 3.4 Regulatory Framework 3.4.1 Reimbursement Framework 3.4.1.1 North America 3.4.1.2 Europe 3.4.1.3 Asia Pacific 3.4.2 Standards & Compliance 3.4.3 Safety 3.5 Market Driver Analysis 3.5.1 Growing Geriatric Population 3.5.2 Increasing Prevalence Of Cancer 3.5.3 Increase In Preference For Minimally Invasive Or Keyhole Surgeries 3.5.4 Emergence Of Endoscopic Bariatric Surgery 3.6 Market Restraint Analysis 3.6.1 Lack Of Awareness And Low Adoption Of Disposable Endoscopes In Hospitals And Diagnostic Centers 3.7 Industry Challenges 3.7.1 Capital Intensive Market 3.8 Endoscopy Devices Market Analysis Tools 3.9 Major Deals & Strategic Alliances Analysis Chapter 4 Endoscopy Devices Market: Competitive Landscape Analysis 4.1 Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, By Key Market Participants 4.2 Company/Competition Categorization (Key Innovators, Market Leaders, Emerging Players) 4.3 Vendor Landscape 4.3.1 Key Customers 4.3.2 Key Company Market Share Analysis, 2021 4.4 Public Companies 4.4.1 Company Market Position Analysis 4.4.2 Company Market Ranking, By Region 4.4.3 Competitive Dashboard Analysis 4.5 Private Companies 4.5.1 List Of Key Emerging Companies 4.5.2 Funding Outlook 4.5.3 Regional Network Map Chapter 5 Endoscopy Devices Market: Product Estimates & Trend Analysis 5.1 Segment Dashboard 5.2 Definitions & Scope 5.3 Endoscopy Devices Market: Product Movement Analysis, USD Million, 2021 & 2030 5.4 Endoscopes 5.5 Endoscopy Visualization Systems 5.6 Endoscopy Visualization Components 5.7 Operative Devices Chapter 6 Endoscopy Devices Market: Application Estimates & Trend Analysis 6.1 Segment Dashboard 6.2 Definitions & Scope 6.3 Endoscopy Devices Market: Application Movement Analysis, USD Million, 2021 & 2030 6.4 Gastrointestinal (Gi) Endoscopy 6.4.1 Gastrointestinal (Gi) Endoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.5 Laparoscopy 6.5.1 Laparoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.6 Obstetrics/Gynecology Endoscopy 6.6.1 Obstetrics/Gynecology Endoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.7 Arthroscopy 6.7.1 Arthroscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.8 Urology Endoscopy 6.8.1 Urology Endoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.9 Bronchoscopy 6.9.1 Bronchoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.10 Mediastinoscopy 6.4.1 Mediastinoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.11 Otoscopy 6.11.1 Otoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.12 Laryngoscopy 6.12.1 Laryngoscopy Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 6.13 Other Application 6.13.1 Other Application Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) Chapter 7 Endoscopy Devices Market: End-use Estimates & Trend Analysis 7.1 Segment Dashboard 7.2 Definitions & Scope 7.3 Endoscopy Devices Market: End-use Movement Analysis, USD Million, 2021 & 2030 7.4 Hospitals 7.4.1 Hospitals Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 7.5 Ambulatory Surgery Centers 7.5.1 Ambulatory Surgery Centers Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) 7.6 Other End-uses 7.6.1 Other End-uses Market Estimates And Forecasts, 2014-2030 (USD Million) Chapter 8 Endoscopy Devices Market: Regional Estimates & Trend By Product, Application And End Use Chapter 9 Company Profiles 9.1 Olympus Corporation 9.1.1 Company overview 9.1.2 Financial performance 9.1.3 Product benchmarking 9.1.4 Strategic initiatives 9.2 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC 9.2.1 Company overview 9.2.2 Financial performance 9.2.3 Product benchmarking 9.2.4 Strategic initiatives 9.3 Stryker Corporation 9.3.1 Company overview 9.3.2 Financial performance 9.3.3 Product benchmarking 9.3.4 Strategic initiatives 9.4 Fujifilm Holdings Corporation 9.4.1 Company overview 9.4.2 Financial performance 9.4.3 Product benchmarking 9.4.4 Strategic initiatives 9.5 Boston Scientific Corporation 9.5.1 Company overview 9.5.2 Financial performance 9.5.3 Product benchmarking 9.5.4 Strategic initiatives 9.6 Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG 9.6.1 Company overview 9.6.2 Financial performance 9.6.3 Product benchmarking 9.5.4 Strategic initiatives 9.7 Smith & Nephew Inc. 9.7.1 Company overview 9.7.2 Financial performance 9.7.3 Product benchmarking 9.7.4 Strategic initiatives 9.8 Richard Wolf GmbH 9.8.1 Company overview 9.8.2 Financial performance 9.8.3 Product benchmarking 9.8.4 Strategic initiatives 9.9 Medtronic Plc (Covidien) 9.9.1 Company overview 9.9.2 Financial performance 9.9.3 Product benchmarking 9.9.4 Strategic initiatives 9.10 PENTAX Medical 9.10.1 Company overview 9.10.2 Financial performance 9.10.3 Product benchmarking 9.10.4 Strategic initiatives 9.11 Machida Endoscope Co., Ltd 9.11.1 Company overview 9.11.2 Financial performance 9.11.3 Product benchmarking 9.11.4 Strategic initiatives 9.12 List of Other Companies For more information about this report visit Media Contact: Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [email protected] For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900 U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716 SOURCE Research and Markets

The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that the structure of the country’s patent adjudication tribunal was unconstitutional but declined to eradicate it, instead sending the medical device case at issue to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director for further review. The case centers on whether the decisions of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are constitutional under the appointments clause. In its ruling, the majority held that because APJ determinations during inter partes review (IPR) were not reviewed by the tribunal’s presidentially appointed director, their authority was “incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.” SCOTUS’ solution? Make sure that someone appointed by the president can overrule their decisions. The justices’ choice? The USPTO director. “In the end, seven justices said they agree with the court’s proposed remedy, so that is the part of the decision that will have lasting impact: The director now has review authority over all written decisions that PTAB will put out in inter partes reviews,” said Christopher Ricciuti, partner at Oblon, a law firm specializing in intellectual property, in a phone interview. “What remains to be seen is how and how often that power will actually be used.” According to the justices’ opinion, Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare Corp. petitioned for inter partes review of an Arthrex, Inc., patent, and three APJs found the patent invalid. Arthrex appealed, claiming the structure of the PTAB was unconstitutional under the appointments clause. The Supreme Court has ordered the present case be sent back to the currently acting director, Patent and Trademark Office Commissioner Drew Hirshfeld, for review. In doing so, it gave Hirshfeld and his followers the authority to review all cases that go through the tribunal moving forward — most notably, its cases centering on inter partes review. Through inter partes review, PTAB allows companies to challenge existing patents outside of the lengthy patent litigation process by asking the tribunal to reconsider whether they satisfy the requirements that inventions be “novel” (new) and “nonobvious” (i.e., difficult for the average person to come up with on their own). This process has invalidated over 2,000 patents since its inception in 2011. The ability to do this has been a crucial tool for generics and biosimilars companies seeking to challenge brand medicines’ monopolies without placing their own infringement at issue. But the question of whether PTAB’s administrative judges are allowed to issue such determinations at all has lingered. Adjudicating Above Their Constitutional Station As the court explained in its decision, the APJs were making decisions that should lie with “principal officers.” The problem there is that principal officers must be appointed by the president under advice of the Senate, according to the Constitution’s appointments clause. The clause allows Congress to assign appointment of “inferior officers,” but those officers are not politically accountable and should therefore have their decisions reviewed by someone in the president’s chain of command, according to the Constitution. At the PTAB, judges are chosen and overseen by a director who is selected by the president. However, their decisions, which the court called “the final word in the executive branch,” are only reviewed by their fellow APJs, not the director. “This restriction on review relieves the director of responsibility for the final decisions rendered by APJs under his charge,” the court said. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined in parts I and II by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, but dissented to in part III by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Breyer issued a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan as to parts I and II. The Key: Finality of Decision-Making The court analyzed its decision on whether PTAB administrative judges were principal or inferior officers based on its prior ruling in Edmond v. United States, which required them to be directed and supervised by someone appointed by the president. While the Federal Circuit had focused on the director’s role as a supervisor and advisor, SCOTUS said the key to making this determination is where final decision-making power lies. The court looked to its own precedent in Edmond to say that IPR judges were not, at present, acting as inferior officers because their determinations were not evaluated by the tribunal’s director, who is an executive officer. In their March arguments before the court, the government and Smith & Nephew reasoned that the PTAB director held soft power through the ways they could influence IPR: The director could hire APJs predisposed to deciding “in his preferred manner,” for example. But, the court countered: “Such machinations blur the lines of accountability demanded by the Appointments Clause and leave the parties with neither an impartial decision by a panel of experts nor a transparent decision for which a politically accountable officer must take responsibility.” “APJs exercise executive power, and the President must be ultimately responsible for their actions,” the court said. The Federal Circuit’s Solution? Threaten to Fire Them The court below wanted to solve the problem by invalidating APJs’ existing tenure protections, saying the Secretary of Commerce could fire them at will. But SCOTUS said this failed because the Secretary was only allowed to terminate them “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” not because she disagreed with their rulings. “The most important practical result of Arthrex for the PTAB’s day-to-day operation is that the tenure protections of administrative patent judges are restored,” said Saurabh Vishnubhakat, a professor at Texas A&M Law School, in an email. “Even for those who thought a constitutional problem existed, making impartial adjudicators decide cases under a cloud of political removal hardly seemed like good public policy — at most, it solved one problem while creating another.” The High Court’s Fix To remedy the situation without eradicating the PTAB, the Supreme Court sent Smith & Nephew and Arthrex’s case to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director for review. It further gave the USPTO director power to “issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board,” moving forward. Notably, while this remedy seeks to maintain the political accountability required in the appointments clause, the current acting PTO director, Drew Hirshfeld, was not politically appointed. Nor is he officially “acting,” according to the Biden administration. He is simply “performing the duties and functions” of a director since Trump-appointed director Andrei Iancu left the position in January, according to an email obtained by Bloomberg. Still, the court refers to him as “acting director” and is giving him the power to decide whether to rehear Smith & Nephew’s petition, along with a number of others waiting in the wings. “I expect the director will have the opportunity to decide whether to rehear a number of other cases that were previously remanded to the PTAB and stayed (which had left the status of those patents in limbo pending a decision in Arthrex),” said William H. Milliken, a director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox who issued the firm’s client alert on the case. “However, the mechanics of this review process remain to be seen.” A Fix With Its Own Potential Problems “My observation of the USPTO is that in the past, you had the people doing the work on the merits, the APJs, and then the director working on policy objectives — he would never delve into the weeds on the merits of any matter,” said Ricciuti, the Oblon lawyer. “Not only is the director going to be making the policy decisions, but the merit decisions at some level will also rest with the director.” This seemingly procedural change could raise the stakes on the appointment of USPTO’s next director, Ricciuti explained. “This decision makes the choice of USPTO director more political: It potentially allows for more lobbying, with interested parties making sure the person is aligned not only on high-level policy but on particular decisions,” Ricciuti said. “There are stakeholders that get their claims brought before PTAB a lot and they might have an interest in swaying the choice of director.” Recently, top members of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet expressed concern with the idea that the USPTO director held such a wide, implicit scope of influence over APJ decisions without the legal authority to do so. The Supreme Court just rendered that power explicit — and legal. “For those that want to see politics taken out of patent adjudication and protect APJ impartiality, I don’t think this decision necessarily helps,” Ricciuti said. Smith & Nephew declined to comment on the ruling. The case is United States v. Arthrex, — S.Ct. — (2021) The story was updated with a response from Smith & Nephew.