Former king’s surgeon alleges misappropriation of spinal implant IP by Wyss-linked firm

Two veteran spinal surgeons say they were duped into signing away intellectual property rights to a world-leading implant system, a claim that centers on the actions of Hansjorg Wyss, the Swiss billionaire who now co-owns Chelsea Football Club. Professors John Webb, 82, a former surgeon to the Royal Family, and Max Aebi, 77, developed the Universal Spine System in the 1980s and 1990s while working with the AO Foundation. The pair say the papers transferring the invention were signed unwittingly and without proper legal advice, handing the underlying intellectual property to Wyss’s firm Synthes, which was later sold to Johnson & Johnson in 2012. The USS has since generated billions in sales, they say, but neither man has received payment for their role in the development.

Webb, who treated the then Prince Charles for a polo injury at Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham in 1990, and Aebi say they were repeatedly assured by Wyss that they would be compensated fairly. The two spent about three months each year touring the world to promote the USS and to establish its clinical credentials, during which they say they were reimbursed only for expenses and did not receive royalties. They say they would have directed any earned royalties into a foundation to support independent research and education, a use they say would have benefited the broader medical community. The dispute centers on the transfer of rights to Synthes, the Wyss-controlled firm that later formed the core of what Johnson & Johnson acquired in 2012.

A 2003 email from Erwin Locher, then an executive at AO Spine’s partner company, is among the materials the claimants cite as evidence of an expectation that surgeons would receive royalties. The email suggested 2 per cent of transfer sales as royalties for surgeon inventors and described the policy as a base for discussion that would require approval by the AO Spine Board, with no firm commitment recorded. The contents indicate a framework that could have supported compensation, but Webb and Aebi say no such policy was ever finalized or paid.

If the royalties had been paid as the documents imply, the claimants estimate that their share of USS sales could amount to significant sums. Based on sales data through 2023, Webb and Aebi say their royalties from the USS could total $66 billion, or about £48.5 million, a figure they say reflects a conservative interpretation of the data. They say the payments would have been directed to a foundation dedicated to independent spine research and education, aligning with their long-running commitment to scientific advancement. The two men stress that the target is the recognition of their invention and accountability for the decisions that shaped the USS’s trajectory, not personal enrichment.

Wyss, now 89, was approached for comment. Johnson & Johnson, which owns Synthes’s successor businesses, issued a statement saying it has reviewed the materials submitted by the claimants and found no basis for their claim, adding that it stands by that assessment. A Wyss spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.

The case sits at the intersection of intellectual property rights and medical-device innovation, underscoring long-standing questions about who benefits when surgeon-innovators contribute substantial technology that becomes a market staple. The USS’s legacy in spine surgery is substantial, with the implants used in tens of thousands of procedures worldwide, but the current dispute centers on whether the original inventors were fairly compensated and whether the transition of ownership was properly disclosed and documented. The notes and emails cited in the Mail on Sunday report are part of a broader effort by Webb and Aebi to establish a record that they say demonstrates misrepresentation or undue influence in signing away rights decades ago, long before the USS’s commercial success accelerated.

There is no indication that the outcome of the dispute will affect patients or ongoing USS deployments in clinics and operating rooms. Experts say such cases often hinge on the precise language of transfer agreements, the timing of signings, and the availability of contemporaneous legal advice. The parties may seek resolution in arbitration or litigation, depending on the strength of the evidence and the jurisdiction involved. For now, the two surgeons are pursuing what they describe as a corrective path to recognize their contributions and ensure accountability for the decisions that shaped the USS’s trajectory.