The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently returned a decision in a case pitting Shockwave Medical Inc. against Cardiovascular Systems Inc. in a decision that adds a new wrinkle to the question of how prior art can and cannot be used to eviscerate a patent.
Patent reform in the U.S. revolves largely around the subject matter eligibility question, but Congress is reluctant to intervene – a predicament addressed recently by Andrei Iancu, formerly the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The med tech patent wars conscripted another two companies via a patent infringement lawsuit between Inari Medical Inc. and Imperative Care Inc. — a struggle that is playing out in a California district court.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has released a guidance to aid patent examiners in dealing with questions of obviousness in patent applications, but patent attorney Michael Borella told BioWorld that this new guidance could resurrect the law of unintended consequences. Borella, a partner in the Chicago office of McDonnell Boehnen Hulburt & Berghoff LLP, said the guidance might lead to more inappropriate rejections of patent claims for obviousness, and thus make the process of obtaining a clean patent more difficult, not less.
The inter partes review (IPR) process used to adjudicate patent disputes in the U.S. has had its share of critics, but ongoing patent litigation revolving around nerve stimulation technology between Axonics Inc., and Medtronic plc has disclosed another bone of contention in how IPRs are handled. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a patent holder, Dublin-based Medtronic in this instance, can offer a new claim construction for its disputed patent once an IPR has been instituted, but said also that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had erred in not allowing Axonics to respond to the new claim construction, sending the related IPRs back to the PTAB for another look.
Much of U.S. patent law jurisprudence still revolves around subject matter eligibility, but a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisits the question of what constitutes obviousness in patent applications. The court remanded the case between Irvine, Calif.-based Axonics Inc. and Dublin-based Medtronic plc to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) after determining that the PTAB judge’s understanding of obviousness is “doubly infected by error” in a decision that seems to offer some much-needed clarity where obviousness is concerned.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that tests the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be an inventor, a development that may be nothing more than the beginning of the AI-as-inventor story under U.S. law. The Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) April 25 webinar on the subject included some remarks that AI could be used to produce a tsunami of potentially duplicative patent applications, but the event demonstrated that there is almost no at-large support for AI-as-inventor, suggesting that the status quo will stand for the time being.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case that tests the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be an inventor, a development that may be nothing more than the beginning of the AI-as-inventor story under U.S. law. The Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) April 25 webinar on the subject included some remarks that AI could be used to produce a tsunami of potentially duplicative patent applications, but the event demonstrated that there is almost no at-large support for AI-as-inventor, suggesting that the status quo will stand for the time being.
Patent protection in China has been a point of concern for device makers for some time, but so has patent piracy. The Peoples Republic of China has issued some amendments to its patent law that allow for adjustments and extensions to the term of a patent, changes that are a welcome bit of news for companies in the life sciences.
Medical devices have had to deal with a large body of uncertainty where patent protection is concerned, thanks principally to jurisprudence arising out of the Supreme Court. However, Mark Mansour, a regulatory attorney with the D.C. office of Dykema Gossett PLLC, said on a recent webinar that even in the absence of a patent, de novo devices can gain some market exclusivity with smart use of labeling, a practice that can help ensure that the developer can achieve the needed return on investment.
