805-056-1

BrainLAB (A)

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
Abstract

It was a warm summer day in 1999 at his favourite beer garden in Munich, and Stefan
Vilsmeier had just returned to his native Bavaria from yet another trip to the United
States. In less than ten years, Vilsmeier and his team had taken BrainLAB from a raw

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
start-up in a one-room office to being courted by one of the leading medical technology
companies in the world as an acquisition candidate. ‘Courted’ was not exactly the right

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

word, however, as Medtronic, the proposed acquirer, had also sued BrainLAB for
patent infringement and was aggressively competing with BrainLAB for market share.
If Medtronic’s lawsuit were successful, BrainLAB might be put out of business. Even if
BrainLAB could fend off the lawsuit from its deep-pocketed competitor, it still faced an
uphill battle with Medtronic and others in the marketplace for its innovative image-
guided surgery systems and other software-based medical technology advances that
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre
Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

Vilsmeier believed could revolutionise medical practice. Since Vilsmeier himself owned
more than 60 percent of BrainLAB’s shares, the decision about whether or not to sell to
Medtronic ultimately fell on his shoulders. At an exorbitant price, Medtronic’s proposal
was nothing to take lightly.

This case was developed with the assistance of the Centre for Scientific Enterprise and the
Foundation for Entrepreneurial Management’s Strategic Partners Network, supported by Baker
& McKenzie, Barclays, Ernst & Young and Lehman Brothers. Portions of this case were
adapted with permission from David Cassack, “BrainLAB: Image Guided Surgery’s Whiz Kids,”
IN VIVO: The Business and Medicine Report, Volume 20, No 1, January 2002.

John W. Mullins, Associate Professor of Management Practice, London Business School, and
Julian Lloyd prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either
effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Financial and other data have
been disguised.

Copyright © February 2004. Revised October 2005. London Business

School. All rights reserved. No part of this case study may be reproduced, London Business
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, School reference
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without CS
CS04-001
94-007
written permission of London Business School.

case centre Distributed by The Case Centre All rights reserved e [email protected] t +44 (0)1234 750903 or +1 781 236 4510 w www.thecasecentre.org
 805-056-1

By the time he was seventeen, Stefan attached to the head frame could then be
Vilsmeier, a German schoolboy living in precisely adjusted to the three-
Munich, had already become an expert on dimensional co-ordinates, meaning that
software for 3D graphics. He had begun the surgeon could then more accurately
working on a book about graphics for CAD approach the target abnormality.
systems and his research put him in
contact with a number of German A common application was brain biopsies,
universities working on applications for where a probe could be passed through a
what was still a relatively new field. small hole in the skull to sample tissue for

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
diagnosis. The technique could also be
After graduation from high school in 1987, used to place electrodes in the deep brain
officials at the University of Vienna to treat movement disorders, such as
contacted Vilsmeier. They had read his Parkinson's disease. Stereotactic
book and thought he could help them with techniques were also at the heart of
some specific 3D visualisation and radiosurgery, where narrow beams – or

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
imaging problems that the university’s ‘arcs’ – of radiation emitted by a linear
neurosurgery department was working on. accelerator would be targeted to a

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

The meeting proved important in giving precisely defined volume of tissue within
Vilsmeier an insight into the potential for the brain, located by means of the
how 3D graphics could be better used to stereotactic mapping process. A highly
assist in neurosurgery applications. focused and destructive dose of radiation
could then be given in a single session to
Detailed imaging of the human body for destroy the selected tissue, while
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

surgery was, of course, nothing new. minimising potentially harmful radiation to

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

Basic isotope scanning had been available surrounding brain structures.

from as early as the 1930s, allowing
surgeons to identify the presence and The stereotactic technique clearly had
general shape, and occasionally the size, limitations, however. For one, the images
of an abnormality such as a tumour or were not produced in true 3D, but relied on
lesion. The 1970s saw significant multiple 2D images overlain on each other.
improvement, with the introduction of This significantly reduced the level of
computed tomography (CT) scans, which accuracy. Moreover, producing the
produced much sharper, more detailed images and stereotactic co-ordinates was
images. During the mid-1980s, even complicated, as most MRI and CT imaging
higher resolution Magnetic Resonance systems were hard to use and almost
Imaging (MRI) scanning systems were impossible to manipulate. Finally, frame-
becoming available. based stereotactic surgery tended to be
restricted to fixed-point applications, such
Combined with the development of better as biopsies and radiosurgery, where
imaging systems was the development of precision planning would be required for
stereotactic surgery. This involved the appropriate entry and target point for a
precisely mapping the location of surgical procedure. They had a much
abnormalities (such as brain tumours) in more limited role to play in neurosurgical
relation to a lightweight frame attached applications where the target was large
around the patient’s head. CT or MRI and surgical intervention would be
scans would produce 2D images required over a wider area (such as in
identifying the target abnormality in eradicating large brain tumours).
relationship to the external frame. As
multiple scan images were produced, the For other applications, such as spinal
distance of the target from reference surgery – where surgeons relied on
points on the frame could be measured in detailed imaging of spinal contours to
three dimensions. Surgical apparatus guide them – little use had been made of

BrainLAB (A) 2
 805-056-1

stereotactics. Here, surgery generally delivering true 3D images and being made
required free-ranging, skilled manual much easier to use. And ultimately, there
operation. had to be a way to broaden the range of
applications served by stereotactic
A New Company Is Born surgery: instead of providing surgeons
with precise co-ordinates for positioning
Soon after reaching the University of fixed-point instruments, software would
Vienna, Stefan Vilsmeier realised that the enable surgeons to move surgical
project he had signed up for was in implements and see, in real time, exactly

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
essence a dead end. The project involved where these instruments were in relation
creating software that could turn the 2D to detailed computer-based 3D images.
images produced by CT and MRI Vilsmeier believed this vision was
equipment into 3D models to be used for achievable.
research purposes. In short, the Vienna
project was never intended to create In 1988, his visions for image-guided

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
products that could be sold to clinicians. surgery (IGS) were just pipe dreams.
There was neither any demand from

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

Vilsmeier was struck by the clinical divorce surgeons for applications of this sort, nor
between the highly precise diagnostic were any companies close to producing
images the CT and MRI equipment offered any sort of technological prototype.
and the actual surgical procedure itself. “I Nonetheless, in 1989 Vilsmeier decided to
just couldn’t believe that they would depict set up his own company, BrainLAB, less to
the tumour with such accuracy, but then commercialise a product (which he didn’t
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

have at the time) than to create a legal

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

put the images on a light box somewhere

in the corner of the operating room and entity to shield him from personal liability
start surgery manually.” Vilsmeier realised should his software ever be used in actual
there had to be a better way to integrate brain surgery.
the visualisation and mapping capabilities
of software and the actual physical act of In 1989, Vilsmeier enrolled at the
surgery. Technical University of Munich to read
computer programming and the theory of
Vilsmeier decided to start writing his own medical technology. Within a few months,
software that would be of interest to a however, he was already finding that his
wider audience for use in clinical studies were getting in the way of his
applications, rather than neurosurgical efforts to build a business in computer-
research. Before he would begin working assisted medical technology. When the
on his vision, however, Vilsmeier, still a course began to require mandatory class
teenager, had to fulfil a mandatory one- attendance, Vilsmeier left the university to
year term in the German army. focus on building his business. His initial
goal was a simple one: to cure cancer with
By 1988, Vilsmeier was hard at work software.
writing software after the German Ministry
of Defence granted him a special three- An Actual Product Emerges
month leave to work on his project. He
was set on an entrepreneurial route, It wasn’t until 1992 that his software
convinced that his knowledge of computer designs had progressed to the point where
graphics would enable him to generate 3D Vilsmeier, still only 24, had a product he
imaging systems that would find a ready could actually sell – a PC-based software
market in neurosurgery applications. He program with pull-down menus and
was sure that systems targeted at frame- dialogue boxes that could be used for
based stereotactic neurosurgery stereotactic planning in biopsies and
applications could be much improved, radiosurgery. The software would read CT

BrainLAB (A) 3
 805-056-1

data and allow the physician to flip through Both produced a range of hardware and
the multiple 2D scan images, set a target integrated systems for radiation surgery
and entry point, visualise in 3D the and supplied medical equipment into a
pathway of the radiation and then range of other surgical applications. With
calculate the arc settings. deep pockets and extensive sales
networks throughout the United States,
“At this point, we were clearly ahead of these companies were relatively well
everyone else in developing this kind of placed to cope with the long sales cycles
software, but we had no distribution,” that characterised the purchase of capital

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
commented Vilsmeier. So he and a co- equipment by neurosurgery departments
worker, a fellow software designer, booked in hospitals.
a booth at the 1992 Congress of
Neurological Surgeons in Washington, DC Getting a new product to market meant
and headed off to demonstrate the meeting regulatory requirements in most
software to actual end-users. By then, countries. In the United States, regulatory

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
they had run out of money. BrainLAB had requirements were strictly enforced by the
initially been funded by proceeds from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

Vilsmeier’s book (DM 150,000, or about whose regulatory process for medical
$75,000 US). They barely had the $5,000 devices was regarded as one of the most
they needed to obtain the booth so they restrictive, time-consuming and expensive
built an exhibit in Vilsmeier’s parents’ in the world. In Europe, medical devices
garage and checked about 800 pounds of were required to carry the CE
excess baggage on the flight to (Communauté Européene) mark, which
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

Washington. indicated their conformity to the European

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

directives on medical devices. Access to

Vilsmeier found other ways to cut costs. the American and European markets
They stayed at a cheap motel during the would not happen overnight.
exhibition, eating just one meal a day, a
junk food breakfast that “was so bad, we In 1993 and 1994, BrainLAB made its first
didn’t have to eat for the rest of the day,” sales, not to Germany or the US, but to
he recalls – and set up the booth in the hospitals in China and Korea. “Those
middle of the night so they wouldn’t have were markets where it wasn’t immediately
to pay union workers a set-up fee. But the transparent that BrainLAB was a two-
privations were worth it. The exhibition person company,” noted Vilsmeier. He
gave BrainLAB its first exposure to knew, though, that the real prize was the
neurosurgeons who were interested in the North American market, where Varian was
innovations that BrainLAB was offering. the clear leader. He began a conscious
Equally important, the show put BrainLAB strategy of getting to know the key Varian
in touch with potential distributors who people. At one major trade show, for
would be able to help overcome example, he managed to identify which
BrainLAB’s principal problem. Although it hotel the Varian executives were using (so
had great technology, BrainLAB lacked he could book a room there, too), and got
any sort of market recognition, and it had himself invited to cocktail parties where
no critical mass with which to break open Varian people were likely to be present.
the often-closed world of medical capital
equipment purchases. BrainLAB’s First Big Breakthrough

The Radiosurgery Market By 1996, BrainLAB’s software and its

related hardware developments had
In the radiosurgery field in 1992, two large progressed to the point that BrainLAB now
US corporations, Varian Medical Systems offered something that no other company
and Radionics, controlled the market. could offer. Whereas other radiosurgery

BrainLAB (A) 4
 805-056-1

systems delivered only a cone-shaped For all of these procedures, locating the
beam of radiation to the surgical target, tumour with a great deal of accuracy and
such as a brain tumour, the new BrainLAB enabling the surgeon to precisely observe
m3TM Collimator worked with BrainLAB and control his instruments were critically
software to shape the beam to conform to important issues. Failing to remove the
the actual contours of even an irregularly entirety of a tumour, for example, meant
shaped tumour. This conformal technique that the cancerous condition would not be
meant that all parts of the tumour received eliminated. On the other hand,
a homogeneous dose of radiation while unnecessarily removing healthy brain cells

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
nearby areas (such as the optic nerve and could impair one or more bodily functions
other critical structures) received or cause loss of memory. Precision was
essentially none, an outcome that a cone- crucial.
shaped beam simply could not achieve.
The result was enhanced patient safety, Given the importance of neurosurgical
faster procedures for both set-up and challenges like these, a number of medical

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
delivery, and improved surgical results. technology companies had been working
to address them through a new technology

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

A key element in this revolution was that had come to be called image-guided
crucial technology from Varian that surgery (IGS). In IGS, the tumour and its
BrainLAB had licensed, thanks to the surroundings could be viewed from
close working relationship between the different angles and displayed in 3D on a
two companies that had begun to develop. computer monitor prior to surgery, to
As the potential of this relationship had enable the surgeon to better plan the ideal
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

become apparent to Varian’s access to the tumour.

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

management, Varian assigned a small

group of people, led by Joseph Doyle, a The new IGS systems relied on frameless
former submarine officer in the US Navy, stereotactic systems – instead of having a
to work full-time on the BrainLAB rigid frame attached around the patient’s
collaboration. head – which formed the reference points
against which precision measurements
Image-Guided Surgery: A Second could be taken. Active markers, attached
Breakthrough for BrainLAB? to the patient, were connected by wires to
an image generator, which, combined with
In 1997, Vilsmeier’s initial vision of linking diagnostic data from CT and MRI scans,
stereotactic imaging more closely with enabled surgeons to identify the relative
surgical delivery bore additional fruit. position of their surgical instruments – also
While radiosurgery was a well-accepted connected to the image generator – as
surgical procedure for the treatment of they operated.
small brain tumours, there were many
conditions that required actual surgical As Vilsmeier and his engineers listened to
incisions. Biopsies, for example, required the neurosurgeons they had come to know
that a small sample of brain tissue be through their innovative work in
surgically removed (through a small hole radiosurgery, they learned that the surgical
in the skull or by entering the brain through instruments used in IGS were
the roof of the mouth) for microscopic cumbersome and awkward, because they
examination. Other tumours, including were attached to the IGS system via wires,
those located too close to other critical and permitted only a relatively narrow
structures, such as the optic nerve or the range of motion, thereby making the
brain stem, or too large to make surgeon’s job even more difficult than it
radiosurgery viable, were removed inherently was, not-withstanding the
surgically in a similar manner. improved precision that IGS afforded.

BrainLAB (A) 5
 805-056-1

“What if the active markers could be large international companies, and was
replaced with passive markers that would weakly represented in the world’s largest
simply reflect infrared signals,” thought market, the United States. It lacked the
Vilsmeier. “The wires would be eliminated funds and technology to be able to offer
and our software expertise should result in fully integrated systems combining its
more accurate positioning, smoother software with radiosurgery instruments
planning of the surgical procedure, and such as linear accelerators and
better tracking during the surgical collimators, and tended to lose out to
procedure.” companies (such as Varian and

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
Radionics) that were able to offer a much
With passive markers, the image wider range – even if their software was
generator would be able to maintain less technologically sophisticated.
precise details of the patient’s location by
having infrared signals ‘bounced’ back to And now with IGS, there was a risk that
it, rather than by having signals emitted the pattern would repeat itself. With its

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
from markers connected by wires. This new IGS system, BrainLAB had an
would free the surgeon from any innovative technology, but potentially

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

encumbrance caused by wires or cables lacked the scale, distribution, recognition
attached to the patient or to their surgical and product range to be able to compete
instruments, and would also offer a wider against the large global players. Its
range of motion. “With the passive relationship with Varian was developing
markers,” argued Vilsmeier, “no matter nicely and had led to a number of
how you turn a surgical instrument, you successful joint sales, but Varian was in
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

get a signal and you have a lot more some ways both a collaborator and a
Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

angles from which you can depict the competitor.

instrument.”
The good news, however, was that the
But Vilsmeier knew that BrainLAB market for IGS was large and the
potentially had problems. First, it was not penetration of this new technology
obvious that there was yet a ready market seemed set to grow. There were some
for IGS systems. IGS was a still 20,000 neurosurgeons at over 3,000
cumbersome process, which many neurosurgery centres worldwide, and
surgeons believed gave them few neurosurgeons were known for their early
advantages over conventional surgical adoption of new treatment technologies,
techniques. In spinal operations, for because of the high complexity of treating
example, IGS might enable surgeons to conditions in the head and neck.
position pedicle screws with slightly more
accuracy or simply give them greater Further, some orthopaedic surgeons, who,
confidence that they were doing so. But along with neurosurgeons, also did spinal
since, as Vilsmeier observed, most spine work, had begun to use IGS to guide the
surgeons believed they could place placement of pedicle screws that were
pedicle screws “with their eyes shut”, the used to stabilise slipped discs and treat
enhancement had little appeal. “There other spinal disorders. There were some
wasn’t a compelling reason to buy an 12,000 specialists doing spinal surgery in
image-guided system,” Vilsmeier noted. 4,000 clinics around the world.

Second, BrainLAB had made only limited “If it’s our vision to build a company that
headway in the radiosurgery market. As a can revolutionise medical practice through
small software design company it had the use of software,” thought Vilsmeier,
been largely unable to break into the “IGS might be the platform on which we
medical equipment market that remained can fulfil our entrepreneurial dreams.”
dominated by capital equipment sales by

BrainLAB (A) 6
 805-056-1

Image-Guided Surgery Takes Off Medtronic apparently saw IGS as a

strategically important and fast-growing
By early 1998, it had become apparent business, one in which it had two principal
that the future of IGS was a rosy one and competitors, BrainLAB and Radionics, an
that BrainLAB’s passive marker approach American leader in both radiosurgery and
and its innovative software solutions were IGS and a long-time arch-competitor of
winning IGS converts worldwide, though BrainLAB. Evidently, SNT and its new
sales in the United States remained very parents, Sofamor Danek and Medtronic,
modest. If things continued to go well, planned to use the US court system to go

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
Vilsmeier thought, BrainLAB’s revenues after BrainLAB’s position.
would approach €15 million in its year due
to end in September 1998, with net In June 1999, Stefan Vilsmeier received
income after taxes in the neighbourhood of an unexpected call from an investment
€200,000 (see Exhibit 1).1 It was shaping banker representing Medtronic’s
up as the company’s best year ever. neurosurgical group, a group that had

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
Since BrainLAB had never raised any been formed to integrate SNT, Sofamor
significant equity capital, Vilsmeier was Danek, and a couple of other small

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

gratified that his company was now clearly acquisitions that Medtronic had made in
‘on the map’ and that the company’s the neurosurgery field. Medtronic, said the
financial future might become more banker, was interested in acquiring
secure. BrainLAB.

Amid all this growth, however, Vilsmeier immediately sought out Joseph
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

Doyle, who had moved from Varian to

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

consolidation of the IGS industry began to

set in, as the leading players scrambled BrainLAB in 1998. “You’re spending all
for market share and to gain control of your time working with BrainLAB,” his
promising technological advances Varian boss had said, reflecting on the
developed by new entrants. growing importance of the BrainLAB
relationship to Varian’s success in the
In May 1998, a small bombshell landed radiosurgery and IGS markets. “They
squarely on Vilsmeier’s desk. Surgical might as well pay your salary.” Doyle, as
Navigation Technologies, Inc. (SNT), an an American, might have useful insights
IGS pioneer and a market leader in the into what Medtronic was thinking, and
United States, filed an action in the US Doyle’s MBA from Stanford might have
alleging that BrainLAB’s stereotactic equipped him to think through the
localisation systems infringed a patent implications of a merger, something
owned by SNT. One month later, SNT Vilsmeier had never contemplated.
amended the complaint to ask that
BrainLAB’s US patent be declared invalid. “What shall we say?” asked Vilsmeier.
In December 1998 and in February 1999, “Let’s talk,” replied Doyle. “It doesn’t cost
further claims alleging infringement of anything.” Doyle and Vilsmeier flew to
additional patents were made by SNT and Salt Lake City, where discussions
its new parent company, Sofamor Danek commenced. Three main issues were on
of France, which soon thereafter was itself the table. First, what might a business
acquired by Medtronic, a high-flying plan look like for a combined business that
American-based New York Stock would benefit from BrainLAB’s number
Exchange listed global leader in several one position in Europe and Medtronic’s
medical technology arenas. number one position in the US? Doyle
and his counterpart from Medtronic ran
spreadsheet after spreadsheet to better
understand what a joint future might look
1
Currency amounts have been converted to Euros.
like from a financial point of view.

BrainLAB (A) 7
 805-056-1

with an operations background in the food

Second, how might the two directly industry, would be moved in to head the
competing product lines be managed? expanded unit that would result from the
Should both lines continue to be marketed, merger. To this proposal Vilsmeier
since each side took the view that “We’re replied, “He’s good at operations. He
better than they are,” or would one should report to me.”
dominate the other? The two operations –
BrainLAB and the neurosurgery unit within Finally, the CEO of Sofamor Danek, who
Medtronic – were quite similar, with had not been involved in all the talks,

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
software engineers and sales and joined the discussion and put his cards on
operations teams, and each with a strong the table. “Look,” he said. “We’re
entrepreneurial founder, each of whom acquiring you. We’ll manage the
thought, “I’m the guy to lead this business.”
business”.
Decision Time

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
The third issue was price. Based on its
high-flying stock trading multiples,
The ongoing discussions with Medtronic

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

Medtronic could afford to spend many
had consumed considerable amounts of
millions.
time and energy, and Vilsmeier now knew
the terms of the deal. It was time to
As talks progressed over the next few
decide whether or not he should sell. It
months, it became clear to the Medtronic
was clear to him why Medtronic wanted
leadership that neither the SNT founder
BrainLAB. The merger would take a key
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

who had sold his company to Medtronic

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

competitor – BrainLAB – out of the market,

nor Stefan Vilsmeier could imagine
leaving only Radionics to do battle with. It
working for the other. Despite the ongoing
would give Medtronic an instant lead in
talks, SNT was moving aggressively into
Europe and Asia, where BrainLAB was the
BrainLAB’s core markets in Europe, and
market leader, to go along with its number
had made offers of employment to several
one position in North America. And it
of BrainLAB’s top sales staff. SNT was a
would give Medtronic BrainLAB’s cutting
fierce competitor, and the stakes were
edge technology.
rising.
On BrainLAB’s side, there were also
In an effort to wrap things up, Bill George,
persuasive arguments to do the deal. The
Medtronic’s CEO and an icon in the
financial incentives were certainly
medical technology industry, flew
attractive. Vilsmeier’s 60 percent share of
Vilsmeier to Minnesota for a final meeting
the proposed price – a figure considerably
to bring the deal to a close. He flew
larger than BrainLAB’s revenues – wasn’t
Vilsmeier and Doyle from Atlanta to
exactly small change. The other BrainLAB
Minnesota in the company Learjet. After a
employees who had earned stock along
few drinks at the Medtronic vice
the way would be enriched as well. Then
chairman’s luxurious lakeside estate and a
there was the non-trivial matter of the
boat ride to the other side for dinner,
lawsuit and the fact that, as Vilsmeier put
Vilsmeier met Bill George. Then, it was
it, “they were trying to kill us. If we lose
back on the Learjet to Colorado, where
the lawsuit, we could be out of business
Medtronic’s neurosurgery business was
within a year”. During the acquisition
headquartered.
discussions, Medtronic had delayed the
depositions in the legal proceedings, but
As the discussions progressed, the
Vilsmeier knew that the heat would be
president of Sofamor Danek indicated that
turned on if he backed out of the deal. If
Medtronic had decided that a member of
he declined to sell, could his still small
its strategic planning staff, an executive

BrainLAB (A) 8
 805-056-1

company successfully do battle – in the

American courts and in the marketplace –
with one of the largest medical companies
in the world? It would be David against
Goliath.

On the other hand, Vilsmeier thought, “We

were having more fun than we had ever
had in our lives. We were revolutionising

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
medical practice with our software, and the
applications we had in mind for future
development looked every bit as promising
as those we had already addressed.”
There were also personal perspectives to
be considered. Could Vilsmeier possibly

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
report to ‘the food guy’ who knew nothing
about software? Did he want his business

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

to simply be rounding error in Medtronic’s
earnings per share? The decision would
not be an easy one to make.
Educational material supplied by The Case Centre
Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

BrainLAB (A) 9
 805-056-1

Exhibit 1: Financial Performance for Year Ending September 1998*

Income Statement (Euros 000)

Sales 15,755
Cost of sales (4,992)

Gross profit 10,763

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
Operating expenses
Selling and marketing (6,138)
General and administrative (1,831)
Research and development (2,347)

Total operating expenses (10,316)

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
Operating income 447

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

Other income 62

Net income before taxes 509

Deferred income taxes (121)

Educational material supplied by The Case Centre

Current income taxes (143)

Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

Net income 245

*All figures converted to Euros at 1 Euro = 1.95583 DM

BrainLAB (A) 10
 805-056-1

Exhibit 1 (continued): Financial Performance for Year Ending September 1998*

Balance Sheet (Euros 000)

ASSETS
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents 774
Accounts receivable (trade) 3,919
Other current assets 1,123

Usage permitted only within these parameters. This PDF may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or uploaded to any LLM (e.g. ChatGPT).
Inventories 779
Prepaid expenses 8

Total current assets 6,603

Property, plant, and equipment (net) 828

Purchased for use on the Entrepreneurship Foundations, at BITS School of Management (BITSoM).
Intangible assets 36

Taught by Gerard George, from 16-Nov-2023 to 15-Dec-2023. Order ref F493405.

Financial assets
Investments 409
Other loans 904

Total financial assets 1,313

Educational material supplied by The Case Centre
Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I

TOTAL ASSETS 8,780

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Current liabilities
Accounts payable, trade 1,222
Liabilities due to banks 6,256
Other liabilities 943
Accrued taxes 117

Total current liabilities 8,538

TOTAL LIABILITIES 8,538

Shareholders’ equity
Capital subscribed 26
Retained earnings 216

Total shareholders’ equity 242

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY 8,780

*All figures converted to Euros at 1 Euro = 1.95583 DM

BrainLAB (A) 11