Reply to post: Re: Patent

Theranos' Holmes admits she slapped Big Pharma logos on lab reports to boost her biz

ibmalone

Re: Patent

Thanks for the clarification.

One can of course patent an improvement on an existing patent, again I'm not sure whether Siemens could complain about that at all, and even if the filling was confidential the patent if accepted can't be, so they'd find out anyway. If Theranos did patent something based on, for example, reverse engineering that they had a contract saying they must not do, then that'd put them in pretty sticky territory. Could Siemens force them to hand such a patent over? Don't know. Asking investors to agree to non-disclosure might be normal while the patent is still being approved anyway (for example, if planning international patents afterward).

All of which is to say, I find the trade secret line pretty weak. But if they were worried about Siemen's lawyers then filing a patent, whether the filing is confidential or not, would have been pretty stupid as it will be made public on approval, that's the trade-off.

Of course, there remains the possibility no-one involved at that stage actually knew what they were doing. But it seems simpler to ascribe all this to excuses to hide the information from their investors and pretend they had secret technology that actually worked, rather than admit, "We're using standard kit and diluting the samples, yes there's a reason the manufacturers don't suggest that."

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon