Policy Targeted Clinicians and Distributors
Under the now-withdrawn framework, Edwards stated it would decline to sponsor clinicians who participated in clinical trials involving competing copycat devices. It also said those clinicians would be excluded from future Edwards-led research initiatives.
The company further indicated it would refuse to distribute its products through distributors that also supplied rival devices deemed to be copies.
The policy itself maintained that Edwards intended to remain compliant with antitrust and intellectual property laws. Still, the commission’s scrutiny signaled concerns that such restrictions could potentially limit market access or penalize stakeholders engaging with competitors.
Edwards did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.
While the probe has been shelved, the episode serves as a reminder that in highly specialized medical markets — where innovation can mean life-saving advances — the line between protecting intellectual property and restricting competition can be razor thin. For now, Edwards Drops ‘Anti-Copycatting’ Policy, and with it, at least temporarily, the weight of an EU antitrust investigation.
