She could try, but the patents might be found to be 'non-enabling' and thus invalid. Patents are supposed to teach a reader how to make the invention.
In particular, it seems that the microfluidics stuff needs new inventions to make it work in practice. So presumably those aren't described in the patents. Although it wouldn't be the first time that management overlooked solutions provided by their own researchers.
Are patents _required_ to teach a reader how to make the invention? That seems like an interesting requirement that I hadn't heard of before, and I've got a patent with my name on it myself.
> The specification [of the patent] shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same
It's the raison d'etre of patents. A time-limited monopoly in exchange for full documentation of the invention for the long term public good.
Huh. Thanks for including the relevant part of the US Code. I'll be honest, I had no idea it was a requirement. I've read plenty of patents where the patent definitely would not function to let someone build the invention in question. I wonder how strictly this is enforced.
It's worth noting that patents cover a particular method and not its result.
If the method would work in general, then yes, the inventor with the patent can wield them against anyone who implements that method - even if the inventor wasn't able to build the apparatus due to expense or difficulty; that's part of the original goal of patents, so that the inventor can fundraise for building the device without the funders just building it themselves after being convinced that it will work.
If the method is bullshit and can't be used to achieve the intended goal, then the patent can't be used against someone who succeeds, since they would succeed with a substantially different method that's not covered by the patent.
"having" a patent is different from "assigning" a patent. I haven't read through all of them but having your name on a patent is more a prestige thing and very difficult to monetize. There are exceptions to this, however.
Whoever ends up liquidating Theranos will be in a position to make a call with licensing and enforcement, assuming, of course, they don't let the patents lapse (which is probably a shorter timeframe than a complicated bankruptcy will take).
Letting the patents lapse is a deliberate strategy sometimes (it's more a defensive rather than offensive approach, to block other actors from blocking you from your own technology).
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I have several patents. From my standpoint, the prestige thing is of potential value because it means I'm capable of coming up with inventions that someone is willing to spend tens of $k's to patent. In other words, my idea put a smile on some manager's face.
It's also an alternative to peer-reviewed journals for "publishing" your ideas.
