The verdict, which was delivered on Monday, marks the largest award granted in a US patent infringement case since Microsoft was ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.52 billion in February 2007.

The patent at the centre of the dispute (US patent number 5653760) covers a drug-eluting stent system, a device that is inserted into the heart and used to curb blockage caused by coronary artery disease.

Saffran’s patent, which is valid until 2013, relates to a layer in the stent which releases a drug that targets the damaged tissue and reduces the chances of tissue re-growth within the artery.

Boston Scientific’s Taxus Express and Taxus Liberte stents employed a similar layer, which the Texas jury found sufficient evidence to deem infringing on Monday.

A statement released by Dickstein Shapiro, the firm representing Saffran, said that Boston Scientific holds 55% of the market share for drug-eluting stents.

Saffran, an interventional radiologist from New Jersey, does not manufacture or sell stents.

Judge John Ward, who hears many of the patent suits brought in Marshall, Texas, presided over the case. Ward is famous for his local patent rules, which he implemented in 1999 in an effort to improve efficiency for patent litigation cases.

The verdict contributes to the perception within the patent community that the Eastern District of Texas has become particularly plaintiff-friendly.

According to legal research company Westlaw, 15% of new patent infringement cases filed between August 1 and November 1 last year were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

However, Gary Hoffman of Dickstein Shapiro, who acted as lead counsel for Saffran, told Managing IP that the jury was "fairly conservative" and said that "at the end of the day, the jury found our witnesses more credible". He also said that Boston Scientific’s position on the facts was "inconsistent" and "that doesn’t go over well anyplace".

Hoffman said that the plaintiff has not yet decided if he will request an injunction to stop the sale of stents during post-trial motions.

A statement released by Boston Scientific said: "The Company believes the jury verdict is unsupported by both the evidence and the law. On these grounds, the Company plans to seek to overturn the verdict in post-trial motions before the District Court and, if unsuccessful, to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Company believes it will prevail on appeal."