Healthcare Equipment and Supplies
Company Overview of Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Baxter Healthcare Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets healthcare equipment and instruments. It focuses on critical therapies for life-threatening conditions, specifically with products and services in blood therapies, cardiovascular medicine, medication delivery, and renal therapy. The company offers its products in the United States and internationally. The company was formerly known as Travenol Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Baxter Healthcare Corporation in July 1987. The company was incorporated in 1966 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. Baxter Healthcare Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Baxter International Inc.
One Baxter Parkway
Deerfield, IL 60015-4633
Founded in 1966
Key Executives for Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2014.
Baxter Healthcare Corporation Key Developments
APP Pharmaceuticals L.L.C. and Baxter Healthcare Corp. Provide Update on Lawsuit
Nov 8 13
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied in relevant part a motion by two pharmaceutical companies for summary judgment in an action brought by a former patient alleging strict liability arising from the companies failure to warn the patient's physician of side effects associated with Heparin. Edward Dreisbach sued APP Pharmaceuticals L.L.C., Baxter Healthcare Corp. and other parties, alleging strict liability claims arising from the defendants failure to warn of specific risks of serious side effects associated with Heparin, including Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombus. APP and Baxter moved for summary judgment. In a prior ruling, the district court denied the defendants motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert testimony as to the adequacy of the warnings provided by the defendants. The court found the plaintiff's expert raised a fact issue as to the adequacy of the warnings and, accordingly, the defendants related motion for summary judgment was denied. The court noted the defendants second ground for summary judgment was that Dreisbach failed to establish proximate causation between the allegedly inadequate warning and his injury. The defendants argued that because Dreisbach's physicians did not read the Heparin label, were aware of the risks of HITT and stood by their decisions to prescribe Heparin, Dreisbach could not prove that the alleged inadequate warning was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm he suffered. The court recognized that Dreisbach's physicians had a duty to use their independent judgment in deciding what form of anticoagulant to use on a specific patient. The court noted that neither party asked one of Dreisbach's treating physicians if he would have given Dreisbach Heparin had he received Dreisbach's proposed warnings. Instead, the physician was asked whether he would be able to follow a dear healthcare provider letter, providing that the duration of heparin should be limited, whenever possible, to less than five days. The court found the record raised a material fact as to causation because it was unclear whether the physician was testifying to the fact that he would have been able to follow an instruction to use Heparin for less than five days specifically in the plaintiff's case. Accordingly, and after finding no merit to the defendants remaining arguments, the district court denied in part the defendants motion for summary judgment.
Baxter Healthcare Corp. Plans to Cuts 91 Jobs in Orleans
Sep 28 13
Baxter Healthcare Corp. plans to eliminate the jobs effective the beginning of January in Orleans County. The company is laying off 91 workers.
Fish & Richardson Wins Appellate Decision for Fresenius USA in Patent Infringement Case Against Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International
Jul 9 13
Fish & Richardson has won an appellate decision in a patent infringement case for Fresenius USA Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. against Baxter International and Baxter Healthcare Corp. regarding a patent for a hemodialysis machine. The firm said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a July 2, decision, held that federal trial and appellate courts are required by statute to dismiss pending patent cases if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has cancelled the asserted claims through re-examination. Fresenius sued Baxter in 2003. Baxter counter-sued for patent infringement. In 2005 Fresenius hired Fish as new counsel for the district court litigation, and Fish quickly filed a request for ex parte reexamination of Baxter's patents. In the district court proceedings, a single Baxter patent survived trial and a 2009 appeal sent the case back to district court for further proceedings on damages issues. In the meantime, the PTO invalidated the asserted claims in the remaining patent. Fresenius appealed from the district court and Baxter appealed from the PTO reexamination. The Federal Circuit heard the reexamination appeal first, affirming the PTO's ruling that invalidated all the asserted patent claims. Fresenius then argued in the other appeal that Baxter's case had to be dismissed because its claims had been cancelled. In the July 2 ruling, the Federal Circuit agreed, vacated the district court judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. The court recognized and gave effect to its prior affirmance of the PTO's cancellation of the asserted claims in the appeal from the Patent Office reexamination, even though the court, in the first appeal from the district court, had held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of invalidity before the jury. It reasoned that once the PTO cancelation of the asserted claims was affirmed, the patent owner no longer had a viable cause of action.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions