US Court of Appeals rejects Hologic petition to revisit patent invalidation
advertisement
Current Location:
>
> This Story


Log in or Register to rate this News Story
Forward Printable StoryPrint Comment
advertisement

 

advertisement

 

Women's Health Homepage

AI solution distinguishes complex pathologies for accurate breast cancer diagnosis Classify ductal carcinoma in situ from atypia

Dense breast laws not boosting ultrasound screening rates: study Researchers suggest risk of overdiagnosis may outweigh benefits in some cases

Radiotherapy beats anti-hormonal therapy for some breast cancer patients, says study Avoiding side effects such as hot flashes, weight gain and bone fracture

Three reasons growth in the mammo systems market will likely slow Insights from the market analysts at Signify Research

NY law requires coverage for medically necessary mammo for women under 40 More than 12,000 younger women diagnosed with breast cancer annually

Insights on implementing digital breast tomosynthesis from someone who knows As a radiologist launching her third DBT program at a breast imaging facility, Dr. Stacy Smith-Foley is uniquely poised to discuss its benefits

AI could enhance efficiency and accuracy of DBT, says study Can help reduce reading times for DBT

Study calls for greater discussion of cost in breast cancer surgery decisions Nearly one in three women consider cost when choosing breast cancer surgery procedures

The significance of the MQSA updates and ACP guidelines Setbacks and milestones for the breast imaging community

Improving care by enhancing fetal ultrasound imaging New tech is supporting better outcomes at NYU Winthrop

The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit has denied
Hologic's request to revisit an
earlier decision that invalidated
its '183 patent

US Court of Appeals rejects Hologic petition to revisit patent invalidation

by John R. Fischer , Staff Reporter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has issued a final rejection to Hologic’s petition to revisit an April 2019 ruling that upheld the invalidation of a disputed patent in a case between the women's health manufacturer and Minerva Surgical.

The denial of Hologic’s request reaffirms the U.S. Patent Office's 2017 decision to invalidate the '183 patent, which revolved around a method for detecting the existence of any perforations within the uterine wall lining prior to ablation. Hologic used the patent as an arguing point against the sale of Minerva Surgical’s Endometrial Ablation System.

Story Continues Below Advertisement

THE (LEADER) IN MEDICAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGY SINCE 1982. SALES-SERVICE-REPAIR

Special-Pricing Available on Medical Displays, Patient Monitors, Recorders, Printers, Media, Ultrasound Machines, and Cameras.This includes Top Brands such as SONY, BARCO, NDS, NEC, LG, EDAN, EIZO, ELO, FSN, PANASONIC, MITSUBISHI, OLYMPUS, & WIDE.



“Since 2015, Hologic has tried repeatedly and — fortunately for patients — unsuccessfully to use its '183 patent to halt sales of Minerva's best-in-class Endometrial Ablation System,” Vera Elson, a lead trial lawyer and a partner for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who represented Minerva Surgical, told HCB News. “The decision means that the millions of women in the U.S. who suffer from abnormally heavy menstrual bleeding will continue having access to Minerva, the fastest growing Endometrial Ablation System in the U.S.”

Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB) affects more than 10 million women annually in the U.S. alone. Ablation procedures can be used to treat this condition, but not in circumstances where holes are found in the lining of the uterine wall, as the delivery of energy from the process creates heat that could seep through the holes and potentially damage nearby organs, likely leading to the need for major surgery.

Hologic initially filed its patent infringement suit against Minerva in 2015, alleging that the latter’s EAS violated four U.S. patents owned by it. Two were dropped prior to the trial following the expiration of one and the invalidation of the other by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a result of Minerva filing a post-grant review of the patent.

Minerva also filed an inter partes review (IPR) with the USPTO to review the validity of the ‘183 patent. It presented evidence that showed that similar methods had been patented before and challenged Hologic’s assertion that conducting its method requires a skilled artisan with experience using uterine devices.

The USPTO agreed with Minerva’s argument, and invalidated the patent in December 2017. Hologic appealed the decision to a three judge panel for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which unanimously upheld USPTO’s decision in April, and ordered Hologic to pay Minerva’s costs for the appeal. It noted in its deliberation that the Federal Circuit was “not likely” to reconsider its decision, and that the Supreme Court would likely not grant certiorari (further review) on the matter.
  Pages: 1 - 2 >>

Women's Health Homepage


You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment