Ipr In Digital Health Device Patents.
1. Introduction to IPR in Digital Health Devices
Digital health devices include wearables (like smartwatches), diagnostic tools, telemedicine platforms, remote monitoring systems, and AI-based health apps. These devices combine hardware, software, and medical algorithms, making IPR issues complex.
Types of IPR Relevant
Patents – Protect inventions (device design, algorithms, diagnostic methods).
Copyrights – Protect software code in devices and apps.
Trademarks – Protect brand names, logos, and trade identity.
Trade secrets – Protect proprietary algorithms, AI models, or data analytics processes.
Patent protection is most critical in digital health devices, but it faces unique challenges:
Many health devices rely on AI algorithms, which may or may not be patentable depending on jurisdiction.
Patents must meet standard requirements: novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability.
Software patents are tricky in many countries (e.g., Europe excludes “pure software,” but software with technical effect can be patentable).
2. Key Legal Considerations in Digital Health Patents
Patentability of Software and Algorithms
AI-driven diagnostic tools must show a technical effect or a novel medical application to qualify.
Medical Methods Exclusion
Some jurisdictions (like Europe) do not allow patents for purely surgical or therapeutic methods, but devices implementing these methods may be patentable.
Data and Privacy Issues
Digital health devices collect patient data; patents must respect privacy laws, and patent disclosures cannot expose sensitive personal information.
3. Important Cases in Digital Health Device Patents
Here’s a detailed look at five notable cases that shaped patent law in digital health devices:
Case 1: Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (2015, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
Athena Diagnostics developed a diagnostic method for detecting neurological diseases using biomarkers.
Mayo Collaborative offered similar testing, leading to a patent infringement dispute.
Legal Issue:
Whether a diagnostic method that applies a natural correlation is patentable.
Decision:
The US Supreme Court ruled that merely applying a natural law with routine steps is not patentable.
Patents must include an “inventive concept” beyond the natural law.
Significance:
Digital health devices that use algorithms to analyze patient data must demonstrate innovative application beyond natural phenomena.
This case emphasizes the difficulty of patenting purely AI-driven diagnostic methods.
Case 2: Elekta Instrument AB v. Varian Medical Systems (2002, EPO)
Facts:
Elekta developed radiotherapy machines with software controlling radiation beams.
Varian allegedly infringed patents related to software-controlled beam targeting.
Legal Issue:
Whether software controlling medical equipment is patentable.
Decision:
European Patent Office ruled that software providing a technical effect in a medical device is patentable, even if it involves algorithms.
Significance:
Critical precedent for software patents in digital health devices in Europe.
Establishes that functional integration of software and hardware in devices can qualify as a patentable invention.
Case 3: IBM v. Priceline.com (Digital Health Context: AI Diagnostics, US 2010)
Facts:
IBM applied for patents covering AI-based predictive health algorithms.
Priceline contested based on prior art in AI algorithms.
Legal Issue:
Are AI-based methods patentable if implemented on standard computing hardware?
Decision:
Court upheld that AI methods applied to medical predictions could be patentable, but only if they produce a “specific, substantial, and concrete” medical result.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that generic software is not patentable, but healthcare-specific AI solutions are.
Case 4: Philips v. Cardiac Science (2014, US District Court)
Facts:
Philips held patents for wearable cardiac monitoring devices.
Cardiac Science released similar devices with cloud-based ECG analysis.
Legal Issue:
Patent infringement on hardware-software combination patents.
Decision:
Court recognized combination patents covering device hardware and cloud-based software.
Cardiac Science was liable for infringement.
Significance:
Shows that integrated digital health systems (hardware + cloud + software) can be protected under patents.
Encourages companies to patent full device ecosystems, not just individual components.
Case 5: Mayo Foundation v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
Prometheus patented methods to determine the optimal dosage of drugs based on patient metabolite levels.
Legal Issue:
Can diagnostic methods involving natural correlations be patented?
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled laws of nature themselves are not patentable, even if measurement techniques are new.
Significance:
A cautionary case for digital health devices using biomarker-based AI algorithms.
Inventors must focus on specific technical applications, not natural correlations.
4. Key Takeaways from These Cases
Software-integrated devices are patentable if they produce a technical effect (Elekta).
Pure algorithms or natural correlations alone are not patentable (Mayo, Athena).
AI-based medical predictions are patentable if they produce a concrete health outcome (IBM).
Combination patents covering hardware and software ecosystems are strong (Philips).
Inventors should carefully define inventive steps beyond natural laws or routine methods.
5. Challenges in Digital Health Patents
Patent scope: Broad claims may be rejected; narrow claims are easier to patent but easier to circumvent.
Jurisdiction differences: US vs Europe vs India have different software and medical method exclusions.
Rapid technology evolution: AI models and devices evolve faster than the patent system.
RELATED Blog
comments