Patents as Product Liability Admissions: A Cert Petition Highlights Novel Use of Patent Filings in Whistleblower Case
Patent – Patently-O 2025-01-05
Summary:
by Dennis Crouch
A fascinating cert petition filed last week (Peterson v. Minerva Surgical) uses Minerva’s patents in an innovative way — attempting to use the company’s patent filings as evidence of prior knowledge of product safety issues. The petition, filed by former Minerva Surgical area sales director Dan Peterson, argues that the company’s patent application for an improved surgical device directly contradicted testimony it later gave in whistleblower retaliation arbitration proceedings.
According to the petition, in January 2017, Minerva filed Patent Application No. 15/418,635 seeking protection for a modified endometrial ablation device. The application disclosed that the original design had a defect that could “plug” uterine perforations, potentially leading to serious patient injuries. The USPTO ultimately granted the patent (No. 10,213,151) in February 2019, with claims explicitly discussing how the new design solved these safety issues.
After reviewing the patent document, I see several points that support Peterson’s argument:
- Problem Identification: The patent explicitly describes a safety issue with the original device: when the device penetrates the uterine wall (creating a perforation), it can actually plug or seal that perforation, leading to a dangerous misdiagnosis. Specifically, the patent explains that if the energy applicator penetrates and “effectively occludes or seals the perforation”, this could result in the uterine cavity being incorrectly “characterized as non-perforated, when in fact there is a perforation.”
- Safety Implications: The patent is remarkably direct about the serious risks this design flaw posed.