'Patent Troll' Turned Away By PTO In St. Jude Case
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
Executive Summary
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.
You may also be interested in...
A Post-IPR World Would Hold Patent Risks And Benefits For Medtech Companies
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.
In Case You Missed It: Top 10 "Gray Sheet" Stories In December
Our most popular stories in December included an in-depth exploration of best practices in setting up an effective "war room" during an FDA inspection; a detailed look at user-fee reauthorization proposals early in the negotiation process; updates from the agency's Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Compliance, and Office of Device Evaluation; and more.
Patent Troll Lawsuits Rare In Device Industry, But May Increase, Attorneys Say
Patent attorneys suggest lawsuits from firms that buy up device patents purely to pursue litigation, which appears to have occurred recently with Medtronic’s kyphoplasty patents, may become a more common occurrence.