Medical Device & Diagnostics

Click here to view our Medical Device & Diagnostics professionals

The Medical Device & Diagnostics Practice Group includes a diverse group of technical professionals, many with advanced degrees in chemistry, biology, mechanical and electrical engineering, and computer science. Our multi-disciplinary team is able to leverage our in-depth knowledge base to provide informed IP-related strategies and technologically-advanced IP protection for a wide range of medical devices and diagnostics. Our clients include start-up companies, venture capital groups, medical device incubators, universities, and established corporations. We provide IP guidance in all stages of development from capital formation to IPO, with an eye toward exit strategies and advanced corporate growth. 

Our services include transactional due diligence, patent landscape and market clearance evaluations, strategic patent prosecution and IP portfolio development, licensing and non-disclosure agreements, copyright and trademark services, trade secret counseling, third party patent evaluations, IP audits and IP litigation.

P: 312.913.3342
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3345
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3317
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.2143
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3334
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2139
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2107
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3319
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2123
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2137
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3377
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3304
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3358
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3376
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3347
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3399
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.0001
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2138
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002
Partner
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

March 7, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Emily Miao is a Featured Presenter
March 14, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Andrew Williams and James Lovsin Are the Featured Presenters

Past Event

January 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Michael Borella, Dr. Kevin Noonan and Dr. Donald Zuhn Are Featured Presenters
January 17, 2017
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson Is a Featured Presenter
November 8, 2016
MBHB Partner Dr. Kevin Noonan Is a Featured Co-Speaker
November 8, 2016
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson Is a Featured Presenter
October 19, 2016
MBHB Partners Grantland Drutchas and Joshua Rich Are the Featured Presenters

Publications

February 22, 2017 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - February 22, 2017

In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court today reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp. involving the proper scope of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). This provision provides infringement for exporting "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention," and the Court's decision involved whether exporting only one component was enough for infringement liability.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
September 16, 2016, marked the fourth anniversary of the effective date for the invalidity proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board created by the America Invents Act (AIA). These new AIA proceedings, particularly covered business method reviews and inter partes reviews, had an almost immediate impact on litigation defense strategies in the financial services and technology fields. The impact in the bio/pharma field was slower at the beginning, but the number of AIA petitions for review of bio/pharma patents has steadily increased over the past four years.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
Since the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l in 2014, patent practitioners and the courts alike have struggled to find clarity in the patent eligibility framework of 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the Federal Circuit in particular, applying the two-step framework set forth in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice with any consistency has proven difficult, as the lines between abstract and non-abstract ideas, between step one and step two of the framework, and between eligibility (§ 101) and patentability (§§ 102, 103, or 112) have grown fainter.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership was the latest in a series of multination international agreements aimed at reducing trade barriers and promoting global free trade. However, the subject matter scope of this agreement and the secrecy with which it was negotiated have engendered deep suspicions from a variety of groups regarding whether its goal is truly free trade or whether there are more nefarious motivations behind it. And with the election of Donald Trump, these efforts have apparently amounted to nothing.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
In a highly publicized decision of over a year ago, Judge Swain of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the luxury retailer Tiffany and Co., deciding that Costco Wholesale Corp. willfully infringed Tiffany’s trademark. Judge Swain’s initial ruling against Costco allowed Tiffany to take Costco before a jury to seek damages, including recovery of Costco’s profits from the sale of the diamond rings, statutory damages, and punitive damages. After several delays, the jury finally met at the end of September for “Phase I” of the trial during which they decided (1) the amount of Costco’s profits and statutory damages under the Federal Lanham Act, and (2) whether Tiffany was entitled to punitive damages.
December 6, 2016 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - December 6, 2016

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, that an award of total profits for infringing a design patent need not be calculated based only on the end product sold to an ordinary consumer. More particularly, in the case of a multicomponent product, the damages award may be calculated based on subcomponents of the end product. In Samsung v. Apple, the Supreme Court applied this rule to reverse Apple’s $400 million damages award against Samsung.
Close
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Clear
Close
Remove
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Add
Added to queue
View
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.
false
http://www.mbhb.com/services/xpqServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=ServiceDetail&service=298&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']