Q&A: ‘Tech expertise hasn’t caught up with demand’

Roche patent attorney Matt Flinders shares his perspectives on the impact of emerging tech on patent law and strategy | Insights into the challenges companies are facing with emerging tech.

In advance of LSPN Boston, Matt Flinders, patent attorney at Roche, spoke to LSIPR on medtech’s impact on patent strategy.

Flinders will be a speaker on the panel ‘Revolutionising Healthcare: Medtech’s Impact on Patent Strategy’ at LSPN Boston in May.

LSIPR: What are the most important emerging technologies currently on the horizon? And how are they impacting patent law and strategy in the life sciences sector?

Matt Flinders: Methods for obtaining useful patient and clinical data, and utilising them in clinical decision-making, are being developed by many of the largest players in both the healthcare and computer technology industries.

Underlying expertise in biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), communications, cloud computing, and high-speed processing is being leveraged to advance this field.

Patenting software-related inventions has been a challenging and frequently evolving area of the law, invoking the inherent abstractness of algorithms, data processing, and natural law.

Recently, the identification of who or what is an inventor has come into play when AI is aiding much of the discovery.

Expertise in these combined areas of technology has not quite caught up with demand at the various patent offices around the world or even at some major companies.

To garner an enforceable IP portfolio in a timely fashion, complex strategic decisions are required to work around the combined areas of expertise and current inefficiencies of the patent offices.

How can companies balance the need for patent protection with considerations like open innovation and collaboration?

Major companies are compelled to seek expertise at educational research institutions where many of these advances are being developed.

However, the open-innovation environment at these institutions and the more traditionally closed environment at technology companies can clash.

Responsive IP portfolio management at both research institutions and corporations is needed, which eventually funds the advances being made.

Being involved on both sides, I've seen how the stakeholders need to adapt and make certain concessions for the successful dynamic to work for everyone, especially patients.

What do you perceive as the biggest challenges/risks when it comes to patent protection in your field?

I’m focused mainly on the software and device aspects of these technologies.

Not having had a traditional education in biotechnology, I’ve had to learn and adapt significantly—not just in teaching myself new and evolving medical technologies—but in guiding patent examiners who are often in the same boat.

What advice do you have for effective management of IP portfolios in the life sciences sector?

Having a great team of engineers and patent practitioners of different backgrounds to work with has been very helpful.

It is important to educate the teams on the importance of IP protection and the various ways of protecting the overall technology through the angles of biotech, devices, and software.

In some cases, for example, it may be a more effective strategy to use trade secret or copyright protection rather than or together with patent protection.

Maintaining open channels of communication with the teams and keeping an eye on emerging trends is important.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox