• Home
  • Archives
  • Contact
Thu, February 25, 2021

Venable Fitzpatrick's Legal Updates / Medical Devices

Legal Updates/
Medical Devices

SORT BY:
OR
Home Type IPR Decisions

Recent Posts

IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

PTAB Denies Stipulated Motion for Protective Order in Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific IPR Dispute

July 24, 2017 – In a July 20 Order, Administrative Patent Judge James A. Tartal denied the parties Edwards Lifesciences…

July 24, 2017
IPRs Filed, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Nevro Files IPR Against Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Related to Spinal Cord Stimulation System Patent

On July 24, 2017, Nevro Corp. filed a petition for inter partes review against Patent Owner Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp….

July 24, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Acuity Innovation and Design LLC Filed Patent Infringement Complaint Against Arizona Dental Professionals, PC d/b/a Arrowhead Creekside Dental

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Acuity Innovation and Design, LLC filed a complaint for a patent infringement against Defendants Arizona…

June 26, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

PTAB Decides that the Petitioner has Shown by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Challenged Claims of a MRI Technology Patent are Unpatentable

On  June 26, 2017, In a final written decision, the Board found claims of a patent directed to MRI technology…

June 26, 2017
Court Cases Filed, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Files Two Petitions for Inter Partes Review of ResMed’s Patent

On June 23, 2017, Petitioners Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited filed two petitions for inter partes review of ResMed Limited’s…

June 23, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

PTAB Responds to Request for IPR on Technology Generating Physiological Output

On June 22, 2017, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Administrative Patent Judge James B. Arpin issued a decision on…

June 22, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

PTAB Institutes Inogen, Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review

On June 20, 2017, Inogen, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against Separation Design Group IP Holdings, LLC….

June 20, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Final Written Decision Holds Claim in Varian Medical Systems, Inc.’s Patent is Unpatentable

On  June 20, 2017, Elekta AB, Elekta Holdings US, Inc., Elekta Ltd., and Elekta, Inc. were able to show that…

June 20, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Final Written Decision Cancels Several Claims in Varian Medical Systems, Inc.’s Patent

On June 20, 2017, Elekta AB, Elekta Holdings US, Inc., Elekta Ltd., and Elekta, Inc. were able to show that…

June 20, 2017
IPR Decisions, USPTO/PTAB Decisions

Smith & Nephew, Inc. Petitions for Inter Partes Review

On June 16, 2017, Petitioner Smith & Nephew, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-83 of U.S. Patent…

June 16, 2017
Load More

Popular Posts

  • IPR / PGR / CBM Medical Device Updates in November 2020
  • IPR / PGR / CBM Medical Device Updates in October 2020
  • IPR / PGR / CBM Medical Device Updates in September 2020
  • IPR / PGR / CBM Medical Device Updates in August 2020
  • IPR / PGR / CBM Medical Device Updates in July 2020

Connect With Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

® /TM / © Venable LLP 2020. All Rights Reserved.

The individuals who maintain this site work for Venable LLP. The information, comments and links posted on this site do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship has been or will be formed by any communication(s) to, from or with the site and/or the author. For legal advice, contact an attorney at Venable LLP or an attorney actively practicing in your jurisdiction. Do not send any confidential or privileged information to the author; neither Venable LLP nor the author will assume any liability or responsibility for it. If you send any information, documents or materials to the site, you give permission for the author to include them on or in the site. No information, documents or materials you send to the site will be considered confidential or privileged by Venable LLP or its lawyers. Also, no such information, documents or materials will be returned to you. All decisions relating to the content belong to the author.