Varian Medical Systems Inc 's

Rapidly evolving technology, intense competition and pricing pressure characterize the markets for radiation therapy equipment and software products. We compete with companies worldwide, some of whom may have greater financial, marketing and other resources than we have. Our competitors could develop technologies and products that are more effective than those we currently use or produce or that could render our products obsolete or noncompetitive. Our smaller competitors could be acquired by companies with greater financial strength, which could enable them to compete more aggressively. Some of our suppliers or distributors could also be acquired by competitors, which could disrupt these supply or distribution arrangements and result in less predictable and reduced revenues. Furthermore, we believe that new competitors will enter our markets, as we have encountered new competitors as we enter new markets such as radiosurgery, volumetric modulated arc therapy and proton therapy. We have directed substantial product development efforts into (i) increasing the interconnectivity of our products for more seamless operation within a system, (ii) enhancing the ease of use of our software products and (iii) reducing setup and treatment times and increasing patient throughput. We have also maintained an “open systems” approach that allows customers to “mix and match” our various individual products, incorporate products from other manufacturers, share information with other systems or products and use the equipment for offering various methods of radiation therapy treatment. We have done this based on our belief that such interconnectivity will increase the acceptance and adoption of IMRT, IGRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy and will stimulate demand for our products. There are competitive “closed-ended” dedicated-use systems, however, that place simplicity of use ahead of flexibility. If we have misjudged the importance to our customers of maintaining an “open systems” approach, or if we are unsuccessful in our efforts to sustain interconnectivity, enhance ease-of-use and reduce setup and treatment times, our revenues could suffer.

Our Oncology Systems customers’ equipment purchase considerations typically include: reliability, servicing, patient throughput, precision, price, payment terms, connectivity, clinical features, the ability to track patient referral patterns, long-term relationship and capabilities of customers’ existing equipment. We believe we compete favorably with our competitors based upon our strategy of providing a complete package solution of products and services in the field of radiation oncology and our continued commitment to global distribution and customer services, value-added manufacturing, technological leadership and new product innovation. To compete successfully, we must provide technically superior, clinically proven products that deliver more precise, cost effective, high quality clinical outcomes, together in a complete package of products and services, and to do so ahead of our competitors. Since our Oncology Systems products are generally sold on a basis of total value to the customer, our business may suffer when purchase decisions are based solely upon price, which can happen if hospitals and clinics give purchasing decision authority to group purchasing organizations. Further, additional competitors may delay customer purchasing decisions as customers evaluate the products of these competitors along with ours, potentially extending our sales cycle and adversely affecting our gross orders.

We are the leading provider of medical linear accelerators and related accessories. In radiotherapy and radiosurgery markets, we compete primarily with Elekta AB and Accuray Incorporated Recently, ViewRay Incorporated introduced an MR-Cobalt therapy device that is expected to also compete with us in this market. With our information and image management, simulation, treatment planning and radiosurgery products, we also compete with a variety of companies, such as Philips Medical Systems, RaySearch Laboratories AB, Brainlab AG and Best Theratronics, Ltd. We also encounter some competition from providers of enterprise hospital information systems. With respect to our brachytherapy operations, our competitors are Elekta AB, MIM Software Inc. and Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH. In our Oncology Systems service and maintenance business, we compete with independent service organizations and our customers’ internal service organizations.
In addition, as a radiotherapy and radiosurgery equipment provider, we also face competition from alternative cancer treatment methods, such as traditional surgery, chemotherapy, robotic surgery and drug therapies, among others. To compete successfully, we need to demonstrate and convince our customers of the advantages of radiation therapy over other cancer treatment alternatives. This may involve funding and, in some instances, sponsoring clinical research and studies relating to the efficacy, comparative effectiveness and safety of radiation therapy as compared to such other alternative treatments.

With respect to our security and inspection products, we compete with other OEM suppliers, primarily outside the United States in the security and inspection market. Currently, our major competitor is Nuctech Company Limited, and we have also seen some competition from Siemens. The market for our security and inspection products used for nondestructive testing in industrial applications is small and highly fractured, and there is no single major competitor in this nondestructive testing market.

With respect to our X-ray tubes and flat panel products within our Imaging Components business segment, we often compete with companies that have greater financial, marketing and other resources than we have. Some of the major diagnostic imaging systems companies, which are the primary OEM customers for our medical imaging components, also manufacture such medical components, including X-ray tubes and flat panels, for use in their own imaging systems products. We must compete with these in-house manufacturing operations for business from their affiliated companies. As a result, we must have a competitive advantage in one or more significant areas, which may include lower product cost, better product quality or superior technology and/or performance. We sell a significant volume of our X-ray tubes to OEM customers that have in-house X-ray tube production capability. In addition, we compete against other stand-alone, independent X-ray tube manufacturers such as Comet AG and IAE Industria Applicazioni Elettroniche Spa as well as small start-up manufacturers in China. These companies compete with us for both the OEM business of major diagnostic imaging equipment manufacturers and the independent servicing business for X-ray tubes. The market for flat panel detectors is also very competitive. We incorporate our flat panel detectors into our equipment for IGRT within our Oncology Systems and also sell to a number of OEM customers, which incorporate our flat panel detectors into their medical diagnostic, dental, veterinary and industrial imaging systems. Our amorphous silicon based flat panel detector technology competes with other detector technologies such as amorphous selenium, charge-coupled devices and variations of amorphous silicon scintillators. We believe that our product provides a competitive advantage due to lower product cost and better product quality and performance. In the flat panel market, we primarily compete against Perkin-Elmer, Inc., Trixell S.A.S., Vieworks Co., Ltd., Canon, Inc., and Hamamatsu Corporation.

The market for proton therapy products is still developing and is characterized by rapidly evolving technology, high competition and pricing pressure. Our ability to compete successfully depends, in part, on our ability to lower our product costs, develop and provide technically superior, clinically proven products that deliver more precise, cost-effective, high quality clinical outcomes, including integration of IGRT technologies such as integrated volumetric imaging. In the proton therapy market, we compete principally with Hitachi Heavy Industries, Ion Beam Applications S.A., Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. and Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. There are a number of smaller competitors that are also developing proton therapy products. We are the only established company in the field of radiation therapy to enter the particle therapy market directly.