Ipr In Licensing Digital Health Software And Devices
1. Understanding IPR in Digital Health Software and Devices
Digital health software and devices include telemedicine platforms, wearable devices, mobile health apps, AI diagnostic tools, and IoT-connected medical devices. Licensing such software and devices involves:
Software Licenses: Granting usage rights for proprietary health apps or AI algorithms.
Device Patents: Protecting innovative hardware like wearable monitors or smart diagnostic tools.
Data Rights: Managing ownership of health data generated by software or devices.
Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that licensing aligns with healthcare regulations (HIPAA, FDA, EU MDR, etc.).
IP Portfolio Management: Combining patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks for optimal commercial use.
Key legal challenges involve patent infringement, licensing agreements, interoperability, and liability for software errors or device failures.
2. Case Law Analysis
Here are six significant cases that provide insights into IPR in digital health software and devices:
Case 1: Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services (2021)
Facts: Epic Systems, a provider of electronic health record (EHR) software, sued Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for allegedly using its proprietary software code in developing competing healthcare solutions.
Issue: Whether copying portions of EHR software constitutes copyright infringement in licensing agreements.
Decision: The court held that unauthorized use of proprietary software code violates copyright, even if the code is modified for different clients.
Implication: Licensing digital health software must include strict IP clauses preventing unauthorized reuse or reverse engineering.
Case 2: IBM v. Epic Systems – Health Data Interoperability (2020)
Facts: Epic Systems claimed IBM used its health data interoperability protocols in AI-based hospital software.
Issue: Patent infringement regarding software protocols and data handling algorithms.
Decision: Court recognized that software algorithms implementing medical protocols can be patentable, and licensing agreements must clarify permissible uses.
Implication: Digital health licensing should explicitly define the scope of patented algorithms and avoid unlicensed implementation.
Case 3: Dexcom v. Abbott Diabetes Care (2019)
Facts: Both companies manufacture continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices. Dexcom alleged that Abbott infringed on its patented sensor technology.
Issue: Patent infringement in medical devices and related software.
Decision: Court enforced Dexcom’s patent rights and restricted Abbott from selling devices using the patented sensor without a licensing agreement.
Implication: Licensing digital health devices requires patent diligence and cross-licensing arrangements to avoid costly litigation.
Case 4: Epic Systems v. Dr. Chrono (2020)
Facts: Dr. Chrono offered cloud-based EHR software. Epic alleged that Dr. Chrono copied portions of its workflow software.
Issue: Copyright infringement in healthcare SaaS licensing.
Decision: Court emphasized that licensing digital health software must respect copyright and derivative works. Even minor copying without authorization can lead to liability.
Implication: IP audits and licensing compliance are essential before integrating third-party health software.
Case 5: Teladoc v. Livongo / COVID-19 Telehealth Expansion (2021)
Facts: Telehealth companies expanded services rapidly during the pandemic. Teladoc claimed Livongo used its proprietary telehealth platform features.
Issue: IP protection for cloud-based telehealth software and associated device integration.
Decision: Court allowed Teladoc to enforce licensing restrictions and required Livongo to cease using patented features until licensing terms were negotiated.
Implication: Licensing digital health platforms must cover feature use, API integration, and device compatibility, especially during rapid deployment.
Case 6: Medtronic v. Edwards Lifesciences – Implantable Devices Software (2018)
Facts: Both companies manufacture implantable cardiac devices with software-driven diagnostics. Medtronic claimed Edwards infringed on software controlling device sensors.
Issue: Patent and copyright enforcement in embedded medical software.
Decision: Court ruled that software embedded in medical devices is patentable and subject to licensing, even if the device hardware differs.
Implication: Licensing of digital health devices must include embedded software IP, not just hardware design.
3. Key Takeaways for Licensing Digital Health IP
Software Licenses Must Define Rights: Explicitly state permissible uses, sublicensing, and derivative works.
Patent Diligence is Critical: Devices and software must avoid infringing patented technologies; cross-licensing may be necessary.
Data Rights and Privacy Compliance: IP licensing must align with healthcare regulations and protect sensitive patient data.
Device-Software Integration: Embedded software is protected; licensing should cover device-software interactions.
International Considerations: Global licensing requires adherence to FDA, CE, and other regulatory IP frameworks.
Dispute Prevention: Clearly defined contracts, smart IP audits, and monitoring can prevent costly litigation.
Conclusion
IPR in licensing digital health software and devices is complex due to the intersection of patents, copyrights, software licenses, and regulatory compliance. These cases demonstrate that even digital implementations or cloud-based features are protected, and licensing agreements must explicitly define what is included, restricted, or sublicensable.
RELATED Blog
comments