The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Planmeca’s argument that expert testimony provided by Osseo was disqualified because the expert was not a PHOSITA at the time the patented articles were developed, leaving Planmeca with a negative verdict in excess of $2 million.

Distinguishing between contract law and patent law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against a Merck KGaA subsidiary, saying Ares Trading SA is still on the hook for paying royalties to a research partner through 2027 on sales of its cancer drug Bavencio (avelumab), a PD-L1 inhibitor granted accelerated approval in 2017 as a treatment for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

Litigation between companies in the med-tech space often revolves around patents, but the ongoing series of lawsuits between Philips Respironics Inc. and Soclean Inc. are directed toward the interaction between CPAP machines and CPAP cleaning systems.

The U.S. FDA is accused of dragging its feet on making public the devices for which it granted market access under the de novo program, and the agency recently been scrambling to bring these decision summaries to light.

Grail Inc.’s multi-cancer early detection test, Galleri, preferentially screens for aggressive prostate cancer, addressing concerns about overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment of indolent cancers, a study published in JCO Precision Oncology demonstrated.

The U.S. Congress is examining legislative language to address what some believe is a deteriorating state of jurisprudence for injunction when infringement is found in patent litigation.

As of this week, consumers can order Dexcom Inc.’s Stelo continuous glucose monitor (CGM) online without a prescription, making it the first to hit the market. Dexcom will have competition soon, however, with Abbott Laboratories planning to roll out its over-the-counter Lingo and Libre Rio CGMs in short order.

The U.S. FDA caught up with four makers of CPAP cleaning machines in the form of warning letters advising the manufacturers that the claims made for their systems fall under the definition of a regulated medical device. In two of these warning letters, the FDA said it had been in touch with the manufacturer for at least two years, indicating that the agency has been steadily working on enforcement activities in this space for some time.

While product liability litigation in the U.S. for medical devices is a matter of state law, a legal theory from 1965 seemed to hint at a uniform national standard on strict liability for medical devices.

Since the U.S. FDA’s approval of the first pulsed field ablation (PFA) system in the U.S. last December, PFA technology has rapidly reconfigured the electrophysiology market in the U.S. and ramped up sales of PFA systems in Europe.