Protecting Medical Devices, Equipment, and Healthcare Technology

BSKB is back for our sixth annual Medical Technology IP Webinar! This webinar covers current patent issues in medical technology and the healthcare field. We will discuss recent developments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and their effect on obtaining patent rights for medical technology. 

We will focus on medical-related inventions with a significant electronic, imaging, mechanical, data processing, chemical and biotechnological component to the invention.

The webinar will have native English and Japanese speakers; each lecturer being an attorney, U.S. patent agent or Japanese benrishi.  English and Japanese language slides will be provided. 

Date:

October 2, 2026 (Japan time)

Time:

9:30 am - 11:00 am (JST)

Location:

Zoom (link provided upon registration)

Cost:

FREE!

Register Now!

Who Should Attend?

  • In-house counsel, technical advisors, and IP Coordinators from Japanese law firms and companies working in the medical technology and/or healthcare field, with a specialization in intellectual property focusing on medical-related inventions with a significant mechanical, electrical or data processing component
     
  • Japanese Patent Attorneys, agents, and students who are interested in gaining a deeper understanding of how to prosecute patent applications in the medical technology field

 

*IMPORTANT: This webinar is intended for Japanese audiences, or those with a professional understanding of the Japanese language, as half of the webinar will be presented in Japanese! 

Topics Covered

  • Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd.
    • A Federal Circuit case that dismissed a jury award because Insulet did not timely assert a trade secret misappropriation claim directed to an insulin patch pump against EOFlow. The Federal Circuit’s decision focuses on what actions trigger the statute of limitations. Many of the actions considered by the Federal Circuit uniquely apply to medical devices.

 

  • Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2025)
    • The Federal Circuit affirmed a non-infringement judgment after agreeing with the district court's claim construction. The court concluded that the patent specification redefined "outer frame" as a "self-expanding frame," excluding Edwards' accused product. The decision reinforces how patent specifications can act as lexicography and narrow claim scope. It serves as a drafting lesson for device patent prosecutors.  

 

  • 35 USC §101 Update with First Major Ruling by Federal Circuit Related to AI: Ex parte Desjardins
    • This Federal Circuit case has become one of the most important recent USPTO decisions on AI patent eligibility. The USPTO designated the decision as precedential and the decision emphasizes that software and AI inventions may be patent-eligible when they improve computer functionality or another technological field, rather than merely implementing an abstract idea. It also reflects a policy shift toward addressing claim scope through  §§ 102, 103 and 112 rather than using § 101 as a broad gatekeeper.

 

  • Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)
    • Another one of the Federal Circuit's most important recent eligibility decisions. The court found claims directed to using machine learning for scheduling and event-planning functions patent-ineligible because the claimed advance was essentially the use of generic machine-learning techniques to achieve a business objective rather than a technological improvement. Many commentators now view Recentive and Desjardins as the two most important recent decisions defining the AI patentability landscape.