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.
The renal denervation patent wars are now in full swing, with subsidiaries of Medtronic plc and Recor Medical LLC, landing the first blow in this chapter of the med tech patent struggles.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occasionally remands a patent litigation case to district court for a variety of reasons, as seen in a decision involving Trudell Medical and D R Burton.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Planmeca’s argument that expert testimony provided by Osseo was disqualified because the expert was not a PHOSITA at the time the patented articles were developed, leaving Planmeca with a negative verdict in excess of $2 million.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a district court decision that Natera Inc. is entitled to an injunction of a Neogenomics Inc. assay for detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This outcome serves as a sobering reminder that injunction can be obtained at the preliminary injunction stage by demonstrating that an effort to prove infringement is likely to succeed even in the absence of a thorough evaluation of the contested claims in that patent.
The Hatch-Waxman Act provides a safe harbor that allows importation of an FDA-regulated article that would otherwise be deemed a case of patent infringement so long as the importation is for purposes reasonably related to obtaining regulatory approval. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for importation of heart valves in a manner that Edwards argued was infringement under Hatch-Waxman, but while the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 against Edwards, the dissenting opinion recommended an appeal to a full 12-judge panel that could reverse this outcome.
The Hatch-Waxman Act provides a safe harbor that allows importation of an FDA-regulated article that would otherwise be deemed a case of patent infringement so long as the importation is for purposes reasonably related to obtaining regulatory approval. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. for importation of heart valves in a manner that Edwards argued was infringement under Hatch-Waxman, but while the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 against Edwards, the dissenting opinion recommended an appeal to a full 12-judge panel that could reverse this outcome.
The history of med-tech patent litigation is replete with long-running conflicts that test the willpower of the participants, which increasingly seems to be the case in a series of lawsuits between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has once again ruled on a patent dispute between Masimo Corp., of Irvine, Calif., and a rival firm, this time with Sotera Wireless Inc., of San Diego serving as the adversary. The Federal Circuit sided with Sotera in decreeing that 17 claims in Masimo’s RE47,218 (the ’218 patent) are invalidated due to the existence of prior art that rendered the claims obvious, but the irony in this litigation is that one of the patents cited by Sotera as prior art, the 6,597,933 patent, was authored in part by Joe Kiani, the founder, CEO and board chairman of Masimo.
Apple Inc., of Cupertino, Calif., has prevailed over Masimo Corp., in a ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an outcome that invalidated several Masimo patents for physiological monitoring. However, the two companies are not finished with each other yet as the International Trade Commission has yet to rule on a similar case that could foreclose importation of Apple devices on grounds of patent infringement.
