[TheFiend7]

Unbelievable. This was the patent they were able to get. It comes with graphs describing an "architecture" of their "unique" medical device.

Patent #8,283,155 "Specifically, the present invention provides portable medical devices that allow real-time detection of analytes from a biological fluid."

and is described as by the article

"This patent describes a generic architecture for a machine that automates testing for the presence of substances in bodily fluids. In the system described by the patent, an operator inserts a "test device" (which contains both the bodily fluid to be tested and the reactants required to perform the test) into a "reader device." The reader device then triggers the necessary chemical reactions to perform the test and reports the results. Theranos' patent isn't limited to any specific bodily fluid, reactants, or testing protocol."

[remmargorp64]

How in the world does that patent not conflict with every single existing blood test glucose meter currently on the market already?

[_bxg1]

Be right back, going to file a patent for a warp drive. If anybody ever gets that working I'll be rich!

[blackearl]

How does such a broad idea even get a patent?

[bumby]

That is the schtick of patents. The goal is to get the most broad concept approved to give you the most defensible area.

However, there is a distinction between the PTO and courts during infringement cases. While the PTO grants the "broadest reasonable interpretation", courts may have a more limited interpretation.

"Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity"

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html

[zentiggr]

Because the USPTO is broken. EOF.

[bcheung]

This unfortunately is par for the course.

[CamperBob2]

Only the claims matter. That's not the claim section... has anyone read it?

[n_o_u]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8283155B2/en

The claims are actually pretty general as well =/

[TheFiend7]

See below.

[balfirevic]

So, are the claims very general and therefore encompass all kinds of functioning and non-functioning medical devices?

Or do they very specifically describe Theranos' non-functioning tech?

It doesn't seem like they can be both.

[TheFiend7]

I was confused when I initially went through the patent and got caught up on one specific part. If you bothered to even open the patent they're incredibly cryptic and IANAL.

Here is part of the claims section, starting around "pgs 47/48", and all of it looks like this.

"A two-way communication system for detecting an ana lyte in a bodily fluid from a subject, comprising:

a) a reader assembly comprising a programmable proces Sor that is operably linked to a communication assem bly:

b) an external device configured to transmit a protocol to the communication assembly; detection assembly for detecting said signal which is transmitted via said communication assembly to said external device.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the reader assembly further comprises a controller having computer-executable commands for performing the reaction at a designated point of-care location.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein the external device fur ther comprises a means for receiving and aggregating a plu 45

c) a test device configured to be inserted into the reader assembly, said test device comprising:

i) a sample collection unit configured for collecting a sample of bodily fluid Suspected to contain an analyte;

ii) an assay assembly containing reactants that react with said sample of bodily fluid based on the protocol transmitted from said external device to yield a detect able signal indicative of the presence and/or concen tration of said analyte; and iii) an identifier that is configured to provide the identity of said test device and is also configured to trigger the transmission of said protocol that is selected"

So yeah, super generic.

[admax88q]

God I hate "patent speak."

One of the most egregious things about patents, is that if you _wanted_ to go implement something that was patented, the patent itself is a useless resource. So much for providing temporary monopoly in exchange for advancing the state of the art. Most patents do not disclose anything useful.

[jbay808]

The claims are useless for teaching, but for a well written patent the other sections document the actually useful information, explaining what's wrong with existing methods, and the preferred ways to implement theirs. The claims are there for lawyers to argue about what does or doesn't count as that invention.

[salawat]

There is no way that is enforcible unless they can produce an example implementation to defend it, or at least to my understanding of how it works. If there's an IP lawyer in the house, do please correct me, but I don't think you can use a patent to go after someone without actually producing anything. It's intended to be a monopoly to protect the inventor while they scale up after all.

Am I missing something here?

Edit: Yep, I am. Apparently there is no requirement for you to actually have to make the thing you're patenting.

This is ludicrous.

[OliverJones]

Prove prior art that isn't disclosed in the patent application, and the patent is deader than Theranos.

[lwheelock]

Perfectly reasonable if granted in the 1950s.

[rlpb]

I don't agree. A 1950s science fiction author might well have written about such a device. I don't see why this unspecific level of wishful thinking should qualify for protection.

[pdubs1]

So, then-- Is it infringing on this patent if any inventor goes and make a blackbox... into which a sample is placed, to have a biochemical/other chemical reaction take place for medical/biochemical testing, and provide a report of results, in an automated way?

TLDR: Then, Anything such as [Blackbox + inserted thing + reaction + report] would infringe on this patent?

Is what I mention actually true/probable? I would hope not, but just curious