• 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! 

 

This is BSKB's sixth year of presenting this free webinar to Japanese parties. In previous years, this was a closed event, where participation was by invitation only. We have decided to continue offering our webinar to the public. Previously, discussion topics have been:

• Teva v. Amneal regarding what qualifies for listing in the Orange book; 
• Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic Corevalve LLC regarding prosecution history estoppel and doctrine of equivalents; 
• Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc.; 2023-2045 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025);
• Additional discussion on recent cases regarding 35 U.S.C. §101, as well as Artificial Intelligence as it relates to Obviousness. 
• The impact of In re Cellect and Allergan USA v. MSN Labs on continuation practice when family members have differing expiration dates due to Patent Term Adjustment;
• The effect of Medtronic v. Teleflex (Fed. Cir. 2024) considering claim construction of the order of performance of method steps;
• A discussion of the recent PTAB decision of Masimo Corp v. Apple Inc. compared with the Federal Circuit decision in LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology regarding applying the KSR standard to design patents;
• A discussion of USPTO's recent issuance of AI subject matter eligibility guidance and review of new examples;
• U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi examining the enablement standard;
• Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta Inc. (Fed. Cir. August 26, 2022) regarding experts and the level of skill in the art in a case relating to radiation therapy of tumors;
• PTAB cases to consider obviousness issues in OsteoMed LLC v. Stryker European Operations Holdings LLC, relating to a bone plate patent, and Alcon Inc. v. AMO Development LLC, relating to cataract surgery patents;
• Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., regarding analogous art relating to a drug delivery device;
• Moving outside of patent law, we also discussed how copyright law can be applied to medical devices in Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance v. Library of Congress from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia;
• The 2022 program included discussion on: Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. (Fed. Cir., 2021); Indivior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Fed. Cir., 2021), and issues related to 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §112. We also briefly discussed the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) Pilot Program