Unlocking healthcare with AI

No items found.
​
September 16, 2021
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Much has been written about the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential to reshape everyday life.

This potential is already being realised in healthcare, with health professionals utilising tools incorporating AI. Among the most exciting uses of AI in healthcare include:

  • Diagnosis;
  • Treatment control;
  • Drug development and discovery; and
  • Monitoring of infectious disease.

For example, AI techniques can assist professionals in diagnosing breast cancer by learning to identify indications of possible breast cancer in mammograms, or AI techniques can be used to control the administration of insulin to diabetes patients.

A topical example of the power of AI techniques is the identification by BlueDot, a Canadian software firm which uses AI-based algorithms to monitor publicly available data including news reports, of a ‘pneumonia' cluster in the Chinese city of Wuhan on December 31, 2020, over a week before the World Health Organization (WHO) informed the public that the Wuhan outbreak could be a novel coronavirus.

The WHO has since concluded that, had governments and policy makers acted faster, a pandemic of this scale could have been avoided.

AI and patentability

As with many emerging technologies, the pace of development of AI tends to be faster than the development of the laws regulating it.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing debate over whether existing patent law is fit for AI-based innovations. Some argue that existing patent law is too strict and patents should more easily be granted for AI-based innovation to encourage investment and commercialisation. Others argue that patents should not be granted for AI-based innovation as it has the potential to stifle innovation in a fast-moving field.

Patent Offices around the world are currently investigating what AI-based innovations should and should not be susceptible to patent protection.

Given the ongoing efforts to harmonise patent law throughout the world, these investigations will not be carried out in isolation and we can expect there to be broad conformity in the eventual outcome. Nevertheless, we can also expect there to be differences in the detail.

The rest of this article is available to download as part of our ‘what's next for medtech' whitepaper. Download for free here.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​