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.

Technical Advisor
P: 312.913.3374
F: 312.913.0002
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
Associate*
P: 312.913.3387
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2143
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3334
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: 312.913.3389
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
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
Of Counsel
P: 312.913.3384
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: 312.913.3368
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

October 20, 2017
MBHB Partner Alison Baldwin Is a Featured Speaker
October 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Anthoula Pomrening and Marcus Thymian Are the Featured Speakers for this Program
November 3, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Andrew Williams Is a Featured Speaker
November 14, 2017
MBHB Partners James McCarthy and Anthoula Pomrening Are Featured Presenters

Past Event

October 17, 2017
MBHB Attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
October 15-17, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program
September 26, 2017
MBHB Partner Kevin Noonan, Ph.D. Featured Speaker at this IPO-Sponsored Webinar
September 22, 2017
MBHB Partner Paul Berghoff Is the Featured Speaker for this Program 
September 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Paula Fritsch, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters

Publications

October 5, 2017
MBHB snippets Alert - October 5, 2017

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the patentability of the amended claims on the patent owner. This should result in more claim amendments being allowed in such proceedings, and it also opens the possibility that more motions to amend will be filed. However, this decision is unlikely to be the panacea hoped for by patent owners.
September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court presents guidance for multinational plaintiffs and defendants charting the rarely tested waters of international service. Specifically, in determining that service by direct mailing is not expressly prohibited under the Hague Service Convention, the Court opened the flood gates for parties to attempt Convention-compliant service by direct mailing.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation – celebrated its first birthday. From the first year of enforcement, it appears that the DTSA got the balance right with some provisions, may need to be tweaked with others, and has yet to render clear results in some.
June 19, 2017 (snippets Alert)

This morning, in Matal v. Tam, previously Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court handed down its most impactful interpretation of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to date by holding that at its intersection with the First Amendment, the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  

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
https://www.mbhb.com/services/xpqServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=ServiceDetail&service=298&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']