Medical Device Industry Patent Litigation Likely to Rise?

Can patent lawsuits in the medical device industry beduty to disclose all information known to be material
forecast? Recent studies suggest that certainto the patentability of the invention. To discharge this
features of patent applications themselves tend toduty, patent applicants typically file what is known as
correlate with a higher chance that some patents willan information disclosure statement, commonly
end up in court. Innovation is at the heart of thereferred to as an IDS. In the IDS, the applicant lists all
medical device industry. As with many industries, ifof the U.S. patents, foreign patents, and non-patent
you are not constantly working to bring newliterature that they are aware of and that is relevant
products and technology to the market, there is ato the invention. Also, a USPTO patent examiner
good chance you will not survive. Companies that areconducts a search of the prior art and may cite prior
successful, and that continue to survive, investart against the applicant that was not previously
millions of dollars in research and development everydisclosed in an IDS.
year to create new or better products. CompaniesWhen a patent is granted, the prior art citations
that are successful, and that continue to survive,made of record during prosecution before the
invest millions of dollars in research and developmentUSPTO are listed in the patent. Researchers have
every year to create new or better products. Notused this citation information to conclude that the
only are these companies investing in thenumber of prior art citations appearing in a patent is a
development of new technology, they are alsogood predictor of whether a patent is likely to be
investing in the protection of their innovationslitigated. One study found that litigated patents on
through the patent system. In fact, for fiscal yearaverage cited 14.2 U.S. patents, while non-litigated
2006 the United States Patent and Trademark Officepatents cited only 8.6 U.S. patents. The study also
(USPTO) reported a record of more than 440,000showed that litigated patents are more likely to be
patent applications filed, more than double thecited as prior art by other issued patents, and that
number of applications filed ten years ago.litigated patents include more self-citations, that is,
Of course, with the record number of patentcitations to other patents owned by the same
applications being filed, and the large number ofassignee.
patents issued each year, it would be logical toHow do patents from the medical device industry
expect that the number of patent related lawsuitscompare? Again, using the small sample of endoscope
would also increase. Recent statistics tend topatents noted above as a proxy for the medical
substantiate this logic as more and more patentdevice industry, the average number of U.S. patents
owners are turning to the courts to help protect theircited was approximately 37. This is significantly more
valuable intellectual property assets. For example,than the study's finding of 14.2 U.S. patents. Does this
from 1995 to 2005, the number of patent lawsuitsresult mean that medical device patents are more
filed in the United States increased fromlikely to be litigated? Not necessarily. The study notes
approximately 1700 to more than 2700, a 58%that two particular categories of prior art citations
increase in just 10 years.(citations received and self-citations) are more
However, the chances of a lawsuit remain low on asignificant predictors of litigation. Although the study
probability basis. While the number of patent suitsdoes not cite an average for self-citations, it does
filed has substantially increased over the past tenfind that litigated patents received an average of 12.2
years, it is interesting to note that recent studiescitations from other patents, compared to only 4.1
estimate that on average only roughly 1% of U.S.citations received on average for non-litigated
patents will be litigated. However, these studies alsopatents. The average number of self-citations and
note a variety of characteristics that tend to predictcitations received for the endoscope patents were
whether a patent is likely to be litigated. Theseonly 1.74 and 0.34, respectively. Nevertheless, as the
characteristics include: (1) the number of claimsstudy authors suggest, the large number of prior art
describing the invention; (2) the number and types ofcitations found in this small sample set may indicate
prior art citations; and (3) the "crowdedness" of thethat the applicant anticipated the prospect of litigation
technological field. Each characteristic is describedand took reasonable steps to make the patent as
below, including how the characteristic relates to thestrong as possible. Similarly, the large number of
medical device industry.citations may be due to attempts to get around prior
Number of Claimsart in the crowded and ultra-competitive medical
A patent must include at least one claim thatdevice field.
describes with particularity what the applicant regardsCrowded Fields
as his invention. The claims of a patent are oftenBoth of the previously discussed characteristics of
analogized to the property description in a deed tolitigated patents have mentioned the idea of crowded
real estate; both define the boundaries and extent oftechnological fields. It may be obvious, but the term
the property. Since the claims set the boundaries of"crowded field" refers to an area of technology
the invention, the applicant has an incentive to definewhere there are many competitors and many issued
the invention through a number of broad claims.patents that define the technology. Thus, for patents
However, in some technological areas where there isthat are issued in a crowded field, there is by
a vast amount of prior art, the applicant may havedefinition more competition and hence more
to define the invention through a number of narrowopportunity that the patent will be litigated.
claims to avoid the invalidating prior art.Under the current U.S. patent classification system,
So how does the number of claims appearing in awhich includes over 430 classes, there appear to be
patent correlate to the likelihood that the patent willeight classes that are directly related to the medical
someday be litigated? Empirical studies have founddevice industry. Within these eight classes, there are
that litigated patents include a larger number of claimsover 2300 subclasses in which a medical device
as opposed to non-litigated patents. In fact, onepatent may be classified. The large number of classes
study determined that litigated patents had nearly 20and subclasses seems to suggest that the medical
claims on average, compared to only 13 claims fordevice field, as a whole, would likely be considered a
non-litigated patents. Researchers cite a couple ofcrowded field. Moreover, most medical device
reasons that help explain their findings: the perceivedmanufacturers are sophisticated and have a better
value of the patent and the crowdedness of the fieldunderstanding of the value of their intellectual
of technology protected by the patent.property. Since innovation is the lifeblood of the
Patent claims are easily the most important part ofindustry, it makes sense that the industry protects
the patent. Therefore, it should come as no surprisemore of their inventions, which leads to more medical
that claims are expensive to draft and prosecute.device patents being issued. Thus, more patents in
Paying more money for a larger number of claimsthe technological field bring about a higher likelihood of
suggests that the patentee believes a patent withpatent litigation within that field.
more claims is likely to be more valuable. However,At least one study indicates that patents on medical
some researchers conclude that the reason litigateddevices are significantly more likely to be litigated
patents have more claims than non-litigated patents isthan the average of all patents. The study provides
that the patentee knew the patent would bean explanation for why medical device patents are
valuable, anticipated the prospect of litigation, and asmore likely to be litigated by noting that the medical
a result drafted more claims to help the patent standdevice industry, as a whole, view patents as valuable
up in litigation.assets.
The field of technology protected by the patent mayConclusion
also explain why patents with a large number ofPatent litigation is, in fact, on the rise. The empirical
claims are more likely to be litigated. In a crowdedstudies conducted over recent years have identified
technological field there will likely be moresome of the characteristics that are strong
competitors who are developing similar products.predictors of whether a patent is likely to be litigated.
Therefore, it seems to make sense that patentsA large number of claims and prior art citations may
having a large number of claims in these crowdedincrease a patent's likelihood to end up before a
fields are more likely to conflict with competitors.court. A crowded technological field may also lead to
In order to get a general idea of how the number ofa higher risk of patent litigation.
claims relate to the medical device industry, 50 of theBy virtue of being in such a crowded field, the
most recently issued patents for endoscopes weremedical device industry will likely remain very litigious.
analyzed. The results show an average of 17 claimsOf course, this race to the courthouse is indicative of
per patent. This number falls somewhere in thethe value that the industry as a whole places on its
middle of the claim numbers for litigated andinnovations, and hence its survival.
non-litigated patents cited above. It would seem© 2007, Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA April
more likely, according to the empirical studies, that2007
these patents will have a higher chance of beingDISCLAIMER
litigated. In addition to having a higher chance ofWe hope you understand that we cannot possibly
being litigated, these results may indicate that thegive accurate legal advice to all inventors in a brief
crowded medical device industry values their patentsarticle on intellectual property issues. Accordingly,
and anticipates litigation, with the end result beingnothing in the above is intended as specific legal
patents having a larger number of claims.advice to any person. Such legal advice can only be
Prior Art Citationsgiven by a qualified practitioner after a careful review
Under U.S. patent law, the inventor and every otherof all the individual facts. We urge you to consult us,
person who is substantively involved in theor another licensed professional, before you proceed.
preparation and prosecution of an application has a