Instead of inter partes review (IPR) being a streamlined alternative to costly patent litigation as intended, a precedential decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could make appeals of IPR decisions, regardless of their merits, another way to delay competition.
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.
Patent challenges for radiotherapy equipment might not make the splash that in vitro diagnostic patents have, but Elekta AB and Zap Surgical Inc., have been locked in a dispute over an Elekta patent for the past four years.
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.
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.
Patent disputes over medical technology exert a significant influence on a company’s fortunes in the marketplace, and a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinforces yet again the importance of patent protection for device manufacturers. In a decision filed May 24, the Federal Circuit decreed that patents for catheters held by Teleflex Innovations were not rendered ineligible by what Dublin-based Medtronic plc had asserted was prior art, thus dealing Medtronic a blow in its efforts to have the five Teleflex patents in question rendered null.
Edwards Lifesciences Inc., has joined Apple Inc., and several tech companies in suing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) over PTO’s administration of the inter partes review (IPR) process in a lawsuit that reached the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court recently rejected the challenge as to whether the PTO is empowered by the statute to determine whether an IPR could be instituted, but the agency may be forced to engage in the clunky rulemaking process to formally encode the so-called Fintiv standard for acceptance of IPRs.
The patent wars over the design of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices seemed to disappear roughly nine years ago, but there is at least one more episode for Dublin-based Medtronic plc before the company could lay the issue to rest. A jury declared that Medtronic is liable for more than $100 million in damages over alleged infringement of a patent held by Broomfield, Colo.-based Colibri Heart Valve LLC, but the contested patent has expired, and Medtronic said it intends to pursue the matter further.
The process used by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO) to review patent disputes has become an issue yet again, thanks to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to the GAO report, 75% of respondents to a survey of PTAB judges said that oversight practiced at PTO affected their independence in adjudicating cases, but that view was not universally held by these judges, leaving stakeholders with a vague picture as to the nature of the processes handled by the PTAB.
The process used by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO) to review patent disputes has become an issue yet again, thanks to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to the GAO report, 75% of respondents to a survey of PTAB judges said that oversight practiced at PTO affected their independence in adjudicating cases, but that view was not universally held by these judges, leaving stakeholders with a vague picture as to the nature of the processes handled by the PTAB.