aga7ta-shutterstock-com
aga7ta / Shutterstock.com
8 February 2016Americas

Federal Circuit revives catheter patents dispute

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has revived medical device company TriReme Medical’s attempt to correct the record of three patents related to catheters.

On Friday, February 5, the court gave TriReme a second chance to get scientist Chaim Lotan recognised as an assignee to the patents.

AngioScore owns the three disputed patents but its ownership was challenged by TriReme, which disputed the nature of an agreement between Lotan and AngioScore.

In 2003, Lotan started working with AngioScore helping it to develop catheters used to open arterial blockages. Included in the record of the patents are details of a catheter-related study carried out by Lotan.

Lotan undertook the study before entering into the agreement, though AngioScore claimed that the study was also included in the patent.

Seeking to use the patents, TriReme agreed a licensing deal with Lotan in 2014.

In order to avoid infringement claims from AngioScore, TriReme filed a court order requesting that Lotan be named as a co-inventor of the patents.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California rejected TriReme’s argument and said that the question of when Lotan completed the study was “ultimately immaterial”.

TriReme appealed against the decision.

In Friday’s judgment, Judge Timothy Dyk cast doubt on the ruling and remanded the case back to the district court. Dyk said it was a question of fact that needed to be examined by the district court.


More on this story

Americas
18 January 2021   Sister medical device companies, Medical Components and Martech Medical Products, are liable for $1.2 million after a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that both infringed a patent covering the design of a handle on a medical device.

More on this story

Americas
18 January 2021   Sister medical device companies, Medical Components and Martech Medical Products, are liable for $1.2 million after a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that both infringed a patent covering the design of a handle on a medical device.