Medtech Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

A Post-IPR World Would Hold Patent Risks And Benefits For Medtech Companies

Executive Summary

The inter partes review process, which provides a non-court strategy for invalidating patents, could conceivably come to an end depending on the Supreme Court's ruling in a case this spring. Device firms have been wary of the IPR process, which can weaken patent protections, but attorneys point out that it has also been a helpful tool in fighting against the growing threat of patent trolls in medtech. While bets are for upholding the system, legal experts say device companies could fall back to other processes previously used to stop patent trolls.

You may also be interested in...



US Supreme Court Case Could End Patent Office Reexamination Procedure

The court has agreed to take an oil-industry case challenging patent office inter partes review procedures on the grounds they violate a constitutional right to trial by jury. IPRs have become an increasingly common approach in medtech and elsewhere for challenging patents outside of court, but not without controversy.

US Patent Battles May Resume Next Congress; Reps Press For IPR Reform

10 New York representatives urge PTO to deny access to the inter partes review process to hedge funds and non-practitioners; generic companies join non-practicing entity Neptune Generics in challenging Lilly’s Almita patent.

'Patent Troll' Turned Away By PTO In St. Jude Case

A patent review board found that a remote monitoring patent owned by a “non-practicing entity” was invalid due to obviousness. So-called "patent troll" cases had been relatively rare in the device arena, but there has been an increase in activity.

Related Content

Topics

Latest News
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT122312

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel