Case Study: Freedom-to-Operate Analysis Case Study: Clearing a Medical Device Launch

This freedom-to-operate analysis case study follows a mid-size diagnostics company preparing to launch a wearable continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and a companion pulse-oximetry sensor into the United States and the European Union, and shows how a structured clearance turned a vague “is the sensor space a minefield?” worry into a costed, defensible launch plan. It is a representative scenario: every hard figure below is a cited public statistic, and every model output is framed as what the method produces, not a disclosed client result.

The Challenge

The client’s strength was low-power electronics and a slick mobile app, not sensor electrochemistry or the clinical algorithms that turn a raw signal into a medical reading. Its first regulated product bundled two sensing modalities — an enzyme-based CGM patch and an optical pulse-oximetry band — into one consumer-grade wearable. Both sit on top of decades of dense patenting. The global medical device market reached about $542 billion in 2024 (Fortune Business Insights), and medical technology was a top-five field for international PCT patent applications in 2024, at roughly 6.5% of all filings (WIPO). The client had never cleared a product in it.

The classification map tells the story. Sensing and diagnostic devices concentrate in CPC class A61B — and specifically A61B5, measurement for diagnostic purposes — with A61M (devices delivering media to the body) and the G16H digital-health classes close behind. Ownership is concentrated among incumbents such as Medtronic, Koninklijke Philips, Abbott, Terumo and Boston Scientific, several of which file more than a thousand families a year. A newcomer is walking into portfolios built over thirty years.

The risk was not abstract. The CGM space had just been through a global patent war: Abbott and Dexcom sued each other across the US and Europe before settling on 20 December 2024 with a ten-year mutual covenant not to sue, after the UPC’s Paris Central Division had already revoked one Dexcom patent in July 2024. On the optical side, the US International Trade Commission found an import violation in Masimo v. Apple and, in October 2023, issued a limited exclusion order against Apple Watches using light-based pulse oximetry — forcing Apple to disable the blood-oxygen feature in the United States. The board wanted certainty before committing to injection-molding tooling and a sensor supply chain.

Our Approach

We ran a freedom-to-operate analysis sequenced so each step narrowed the set the next step had to examine, and cleared the United States and the European Union in parallel rather than one after the other.

Product and feature claim mapping. We decomposed the wearable into concrete technical features — the glucose-oxidase enzyme membrane and its electrochemical cell, the microneedle/filament insertion mechanism, the photoplethysmography light path and its motion-artifact correction, the on-device signal-processing algorithms, and the Bluetooth Low Energy data-transmission scheme — and mapped each to the A61B5, A61M and G16H subclasses an examiner would actually search, so nothing was cleared against a marketing label.

Blocking-patent identification. For each feature cluster we pulled the live, in-force patents in the US and the EU, read the independent claims against the product as built, and separated patents that merely mention a sensor from the few whose claims genuinely read on it.

Jurisdictional clearance matrix. Medical devices face two fast injunction routes that ordinary products do not: in the US, an ITC Section 337 exclusion order can bar imports even of an FDA-cleared product, and in the EU a single Unified Patent Court forum can enjoin a device across many member states at once. Every candidate blocker was therefore scored US-versus-EU, and flagged for ITC and UPC exposure specifically.

Regulatory versus patent clearance. We separated two things the client had been conflating. FDA market authorization — whether 510(k) substantial-equivalence clearance, the De Novo route, or full PMA approval — and an EU CE mark under the Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2017/745 grant the right to sell; they say nothing about third-party patents. The Masimo matter is the proof: Apple’s watch was on the market, yet still met an exclusion order.

Design-around or licence, plus a software and data audit. For each true blocker we costed a non-infringing engineering change against the price and feasibility of a bilateral licence, and we audited the signal-processing code and every third-party and open-source component for licence and provenance, because sensor disputes increasingly turn on algorithms, not chemistry.

What the Research Found

The mapping stage did most of the work. Because the wearable implemented a defined subset of sensing methods and a single data path, the candidate universe collapsed from the tens of thousands of live A61B5 families to a few dozen patents whose claims plausibly read on the product, concentrated among the top holders. The thicket was real but far smaller than the raw filing counts implied.

The genuine blockers clustered where sensor clearance always concentrates — not in a standards pool, because consumer biosensors have none, but in ordinary implementation patents: an enzyme-membrane chemistry claim, a motion-artifact-correction method in the pulse-oximetry algorithm, and a specific low-power BLE data-batching technique. None carried a FRAND obligation, so unlike a standards-heavy product they could not be licensed on defined terms; each needed a design-around decision or a bilateral negotiation.

A freedom-to-operate analysis case study is only as good as its jurisdiction tagging, and here that tagging changed the plan: two of the candidate blockers were already expired in the United States, so what read as a three-country problem was really a European one, and the costed response shifted accordingly from a blanket redesign to a targeted EU design-around.

The software and algorithm audit proved the more important half. The pulse-oximetry pipeline relied on a third-party motion-correction library whose licence terms and code provenance had never been verified — the exact category of exposure behind the Masimo exclusion order, where the dispute was ultimately about how a reading is computed. The jurisdictional matrix also surfaced an uncomfortable asymmetry: one algorithm patent was expired in the US but still in force in two EU states, so a product clear at home would have been exposed to a single-forum UPC injunction abroad.

The Outcome

The board approved the launch with a three-part plan the analysis had costed. For the two implementation patents that genuinely read on the product — the enzyme membrane and the BLE data method — engineering adopted scoped design-arounds, each verified against the asserted claims before tooling was committed.

For the one motion-correction algorithm where a design-around was disproportionate, the company opened a bilateral licence discussion from a documented, already-cleared position rather than under threat. The suspect third-party library was replaced with a provenance-clean component, closing the software exposure that the Masimo order had made concrete.

The result was a product cleared for both the United States and the European Union, with the two medtech-specific threats — an ITC exclusion order at home and a single-forum UPC injunction abroad — specifically retired, and a clearance file that would support a willing-licensee or a design-around defence if a holder ever sued.

What This Means for Similar Matters

FDA clearance is not freedom to operate. A 510(k) clearance, a De Novo grant, a PMA approval or an EU CE mark lets you sell; it does not assess patents. Apple’s watch was cleared and selling when the ITC still ordered the blood-oxygen feature switched off. Regulatory and IP clearance are two separate gates.

The ITC is a medtech-specific fast lane. A Section 337 exclusion order can bar imports of an infringing device on a timeline faster than most district-court cases, which is why an import-dependent device launch has to be scored for ITC exposure, not just damages risk.

Clear the EU as one market. A single Unified Patent Court forum can enjoin a device across many states at once — Edwards Lifesciences won a UPC injunction against Meril covering 16 UPC states in November 2024, and the Hamburg Local Division fined another medtech company for breaching a preliminary injunction. A device clear in the US but exposed in one EU state is not cleared for the market that matters.

What This Freedom-to-Operate Analysis Case Study Shows

The deliverable was not a list of every patent that mentions a biosensor — it was a ranked, jurisdiction-tagged blocking list with a costed design-around or licence option beside each entry, plus a software-provenance verdict and an explicit ITC-and-UPC exposure read. That is the difference between an FTO opinion a board can act on and a search dump that leaves the launch decision exactly where it started. See the method behind it on our freedom-to-operate analysis service page. Each entry on that blocking list carried an owner, an in-force jurisdiction, a claim read against the product, and a recommended action, so the board could approve the launch in a single meeting rather than commissioning yet another search.

Why FDA Clearance Is Not Freedom to Operate

This is the single most common misconception we meet in medtech. FDA review under the 510(k), De Novo or PMA pathways evaluates safety and effectiveness; an EU CE mark under the Medical Device Regulation evaluates conformity. Neither looks at whether your device infringes somebody else’s patent. A cleared, CE-marked, actively selling product can still be enjoined or excluded — which is exactly why the clearance has to be run as a separate, claim-level exercise. We walk through the reasoning in our guide to freedom to operate for medical devices.

The sequencing matters too. Running the clearance before design freeze meant the two blocking features were engineered around while changes were still cheap; the same patents discovered after tooling would have forced a recall-grade redesign or a licence under duress. For a regulated device, where a design change can trigger a fresh regulatory submission, catching the exposure early is not just an IP saving but a schedule and a compliance one.

The ITC and the UPC: Two Fast Routes to a Medtech Injunction

Most products worry about damages. Medical devices have to worry about being stopped. In the US, the International Trade Commission can issue an exclusion order barring importation — the mechanism behind the Apple Watch blood-oxygen shutdown. In Europe, the Unified Patent Court gives a patent owner one forum from which to enjoin a device across most of the EU, as Edwards Lifesciences demonstrated against Meril. A standards-heavy product such as a connected implant can face both at once; our 5G freedom-to-operate case study shows the standards-essential contrast side by side.

Data Sources

The market and patent data referenced above comes from:

• WIPO — World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024 (Patents) — Medical technology ranked a top-five field for PCT applications in 2024, about 6.5% of filings.
• Fortune Business Insights — Medical Devices Market — Global medical device market size of roughly $542 billion in 2024.
• FDA — Premarket Notification 510(k) — The substantial-equivalence clearance pathway for most Class II devices — a market-access route, not a patent clearance.
• FDA — Premarket Approval (PMA) — The safety-and-effectiveness approval standard for Class III devices.
• USPTO — CPC Scheme, Class A61B — Official classification definitions for diagnostic, surgical and sensing devices (A61B/A61B5).
• Unified Patent Court — Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril (final decision) — UPC Munich Local Division injunction over a transcatheter heart-valve patent, November 2024.
• MedTech Dive — Abbott and Dexcom settle CGM patent litigation — December 2024 global settlement ending the continuous glucose monitor patent war.
• U.S. International Trade Commission — Certain Light-Based Physiological Measurement Devices (Inv. 337-TA-1276) — The Masimo v. Apple Section 337 investigation behind the Apple Watch pulse-oximetry exclusion order, October 2023.
• EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation) — The EU conformity regime governing CE marking — a market-access gate separate from patent rights.

Discuss a Similar Matter

Frequently Asked Questions