New Patent Applications for Health Insurance Plan Technology Innovations
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.01.04
Health plans and health care providers need to be attentive to their own patent protection opportunities and potential patent infringement problems, in addition to the more “in the news” patent issues surrounding alleged patent and Hatch-Waxman law abuses by branded drug makers. At least one major health insurer, for example, has recently announced its filing of several patent applications seeking protection for its own innovations in predictive modeling to anticipate future costs and clinical events.
Patents are traditionally used by companies seeking exclusive rights for their innovations. At one end of the health industry spectrum, pharmaceutical companies use patents to protect their substantial investments in new drug products. The health insurers, providers and patients who pay for these drugs are often found at the other end of the spectrum, seeking maximum competition. Insurance companies in particular are sensitive to the drug prices levied by the pharmaceutical companies, and some health insurers have even filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical patent holders for anticompetitive and deceptive practices related to alleged fraudulent patent procurement and Hatch-Waxman Act abuses.
Recent health insurance plan patent filings are a reminder that the patent system is a legitimate tool to provide protection for a wide span of innovations, including business methods, by companies which are sometimes not widely viewed, and may not often even think of themselves, as technology innovators.
Once patents are granted, they may be used to prevent competitors from using the inventions, or they may become an independent source of royalty revenue through licensing arrangements. On the other hand, patent applications may also be used defensively, to prevent competitors from preempting a particular technology, by obtaining patents. In this manner, a company can ensure that it can continue to use certain innovations. Patents may also help to convince investors, stock analysts and potential acquirers that the company’s marketing advantages have an additional layer of protection.
At the same time, given the wide array of technologies and businesses which patents protect, companies in all industry segments need to consider that their own activities may infringe patents and other intellectual property rights owned by third parties. In addition to being aware of patents relevant to different technologies and business methods being used internally, even companies that once had little concern about patenting must be aware of what competitors are patenting both to avoid potential liability and to provide insight on the future business plans of those competitors.
For more information on patent law issues or if you have questions about securing patent protection for your innovations, please contact your regular Crowell & Moring contact or visit the webpage of the Crowell & Moring intellectual property practice group at http://www.crowell.com/ip.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
