In a behind-the-scenes look at the specifics of the case, a website that focuses on legal developments described the case and its ramifications. The claim says that Össur had an agreement to pay “consultancy fees and royalties based on Össur’s sales of products incorporating technology from the patents on which plaintiff was named as an inventor or co-inventor before entering into the agreement.” The company believes the product in question was changed from its initial description, so the plaintiff should not be considered an inventor.
“While most of Össur’s arguments for dismissal were swatted away” by the judge, the article says the court’s decision on the claim for correction of inventorship “has more meat for us to chew on.”
