Preserving the Value of Medical Device Patents during the rise of Three-Dimensional Printing

By: Kyle J. Trout and Justin N. Mullen  |   January 29, 2014

Originally published in Westlaw Journal Medical Devices Volume 20, Issue 17 (October 22, 2013). Pdf version available by clicking here. Reprinted with Permission. © 2013 Thomson Reuters.

The highly anticipated technology of three-dimensional printing promises to open an entirely new channel for distribution of physical articles and devices and, by the same token, a new channel for infringement of patents covering those physical articles and devices. In the medical field, particularly, 3D printing is expected to drastically reduce hospital costs associated with surgical implants and open new doors in the area of custom implants.

Current patent drafting practices and recent developments in the law, however, may create difficulty for the patent holder in finding a suitable party against whom to assert patents. Assertions of direct infringement against the hospital printing the item and assertions of indirect infringement against digital model suppliers are both less than optimal strategies. For this reason, a reassessment of a claim drafting strategy will prove useful in maximizing the assertion value of a medical device patent portfolio in the face of this burgeoning new technology.

VIDEO: Mitigating Risk in the Age of the Patent Troll

By: Andreas Baltatzis & Kyle J. Trout  |   June 5, 2013

We recently gave our presentation, “Mitigating Risk in the Age of the Patent Troll,” at the New Orleans Bioinnovation Center. You can view the video directly below and download the slides by clicking here.


Clearance Studies

By: Andreas Baltatzis  |   June 4, 2013

Check out our recent presentation on clearance studies. comprar viagra Download the PowerPoint now!




The Benefits of Personal Examiner Interviews

By: Arlir Amado & Andreas Baltatzis  |   April 22, 2013

The availability of personal examiner interviews is often and overlooked tool for gaining valuable protection for your client's inventions while developing an open atmosphere of understanding between the practitioner and the examiner. It can also provide legal benefits to your client during future litigation and clarify the issues in order to avoid limiting language due to misunderstandings of the invention by the examiner.

Akamai Expands Liability for Induced Infringement

By: Colin Harrington  |   October 17, 2012

The Federal Circuit recently announced its decision in the en banc cases of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, holding that “all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.” In doing so, the Federal Circuit overruled its own 2007 decision in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech.