Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent developments at the Federal Circuit and the USPTO may inform evolving patent strategy on medical technology. In one case, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent relating to catheter insertion technology. In addition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) considered subject matter eligibility of medical technology inventions in two decisions issued less than a year apart. In the first decision, the PTAB upheld the validity of claims involving medical device location. In the second decision, the PTAB affirmed a final rejection of claims involving heart failure stratification.
In a decision that may have escaped due attention, the Federal Circuit provided another reason for medical technology companies not to delay patent application filings. One basis for early action has been legal consequences arising from preparations for marketing and sale of a medical device invention, including regulatory compliance. In this regard, medical technology companies should be familiar with patent validity issues that can arise for a medical device invention through, for example, an early 510(k) summary filed with the FDA or even a referenced predicate device. Recently, the Federal Circuit has provided a reminder that sales and marketing activities in other contexts also can bar patent rights on medical technology.
In Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., 2021-1649 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit decided the issue of whether commercial activities relating to a medical device prior to the critical date invoked the on sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b). In Junker, the inventor of the patent at issue created a new design for an peelable introducer sheath based on his experience with catheter insertion procedures. In particular, the inventor focused on the design for the handle of a peelable introducer sheath, which facilitated handling of the peelable introducer sheath during catheter-insertion procedures.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.