Legal Standards for Patent Eligible Subject Matter and the State of Patents for Therapeutic and Diagnostic Algorithms
David Sarisky, Patenting Algorithms in Medical Devices

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7 PM
CLU - Swenson 101

Under U.S. patent law, laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas are not eligible for patent protection. Abstract ideas have been identified by courts to include fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. A recent landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has caused lower courts and the U.S. Patent Office to more strictly apply the legal standard for patent eligible subject matter, leading to an increase in invalidations of issued patents by the courts, and an increase in rejections of patent applications by the U.S. Patent Office. Mr. Sarisky will provide an overview of the law, and examples of inventions directed to therapeutic and diagnostic algorithms that have been affected by stricter application of the standard.

David Sarisky, JD, BSEE

David is counsel in the Intellectual Property practice group in the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox. He has extensive experience in the procurement and protection of intellectual property assets across various industries, including medical device, consumer electronics, semiconductor, telecommunications, and software.  He received his JD from Southwestern University School of Law in 1997, and BSEE degree from The Ohio State University in 1988.

Prior to joining Arent Fox, he was senior in-house patent counsel for the cardiac rhythm management division of a Fortune 500 medical device company, where he counseled in the areas of patent portfolio development; due diligence and competitive analyses; and technology rights management. He also counseled on intellectual property matters in support of the business development, research, and clinical study efforts of the company. Prior to working in-house, David was senior counsel and partner at boutique intellectual property firms in Los Angeles, where, in addition to counseling on intellectual property procurement matters, he served as co-counsel in various litigations including patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition actions. Before entering the legal profession, David worked for eight years as an engineer for a major aerospace company.