Innovative Collaboration – IP Considerations

| Printer friendly version

It is common for medical device makers to partner with doctors, universities, designers, manufacturers, R&D labs, or salespeople in the development of medical devices.  To reap the intended benefits of such efforts, collaborators should consider at least three aspects of intellectual property (IP) law: disclosure, inventorship, and ownership.

Disclosure – Identify Each Party’s Pre-Collaboration IP 

It is important to identify the know-how of each party before collaboration begins.  This pre-collaboration IP can be identified in a collaborative agreement or contract, which may be a Joint Development, Consulting, License, or Manufacturing Agreement.  How pre-collaborative IP is identified depends on the nature of the know-how.  For example, medical devices may be identified with engineering drawings, whereas software could be identified using functional descriptions, flowcharts, or code.

One approach for identifying pre-collaborative IP is using patents and patent applications. A utility patent application should clearly identify the subject matter possessed, and a pre-collaboration filing date of the application can help prove prior possession.

Inventorship – Identify Each Party’s Contribution to the Developed IP 

To be an inventor under U.S. patent law, conception of the invention is key.  The inventor must contribute a “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention” such that one of ordinary skill in the field could practice the invention.  Thus, a technician or manufacturer merely reducing an idea to practice is generally not an “inventor.”

Combining ideas from multiple people results in “joint inventorship.”  To qualify as a joint inventor, a person need not have contributed to every “claim” at the end of a patent.  Rather, contribution to one claim is all that is required.  Even when partnering with seemingly non-inventive collaborators, joint inventorship may still occur.  For instance, if a manufacturer or technician alters an idea to make it work, he or she may be an inventor.  However, such alterations must help distinguish the invention from the existing state of the art (i.e., more than just an existing idea or an obvious modification).  The analysis is contextual. For instance, conceiving of screws to fasten parts together does not typically help make an idea patentable. But, in the context of regenerative scaffolds secured to tissue or bone, the use of a screw may qualify as an inventive contribution.

Ownership – Identify Each Party’s Ownership of the Developed IP

In the U.S., inventors are the default owners of their patentable inventions. However, employers typically require employees to assign ownership to the employer.  In collaborations, assignment to another party across the table may be required. Therefore, collaborators should be alert for conflicting agreements, such as where an inventor has assigned one invention to multiple parties.

Further, inventions can be assigned before they are conceived. In collaborations, this can be good, for example, to proactively address allocation of ownership. But it can also cause problems, for example, where the scope of the assignment is not appreciated.  Ownership of expected innovations may be straightforward, but ownership of unexpected spinoffs may be less obvious.  Where capturing ownership is desired, assignment clauses should be broadly drafted.

If joint inventors exist on multiple sides of a collaboration, the default result is joint ownership.  Any joint owner of a patent may make, use, sell, or license the patented invention without permission from or sharing profits with the other joint owner(s). Further, all joint owners of a patent must agree to sue for infringement. Additionally, an accused infringer may protect itself by securing a license from a single co-owner.

These are just some considerations to keep in mind when collaborating to develop medical devices.  The assistance of legal counsel is highly recommended to address these and other important issues.

 

Tom Cowan
Tom Cowan is an associate in the San Diego office of Knobbe Martens. His practice focuses on patent prosecuting and counseling in the mechanical and medical device spaces; trademark registration; licensing; handling cease and desist disputes for patents and trademarks; and analyzing patent portfolios including performing due diligence for patent portfolio acquisitions. Sample medical device technologies include auto-injector devices and systems, prostheses, tissue regeneration scaffolds, bone and tissue anchors, lateral flow assays, photoacoustic systems, raman spectroscopy techniques, intragastric devices, remote healthcare systems, thermoformable composites for immobilizing body parts, personal movement assistance devices, and more. While in law school, Mr. Cowan also received a Master of Science Degree in Biomedical Engineering. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Cowan interned at NASA and was a mechanical engineer at Northrop Grumman where he designed and tested spacecraft structures and mechanisms. Mr. Cowan was a summer associate at Knobbe Martens in 2012 and joined the firm in 2013.
Click here to read full bio
View all posts published by Tom Cowan »

Leave a Reply

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.