Memphis · Tennessee
Memphis device companies inherit nearly a century of orthopedic manufacturing know-how, along with the dense patent landscape that comes with it. Robert Knechtel, a patent attorney, physician and engineer, helps founders protect spine, extremity and trauma innovations while keeping patent and regulatory positions consistent.
The Memphis device industry traces back to Richards Manufacturing, which J. Don Richards founded in the early 1930s next door to the Campbell Clinic. Richards eventually became part of Smith & Nephew. A former Richards employee started the company that became Wright Medical Technology, and another Richards alumnus founded a business that later merged into Medtronic. Industry historians describe the city as the second major center of orthopedic implant manufacturing after Warsaw, Indiana.
Those lineages remain visible. Smith+Nephew runs a large orthopaedic campus on Brooks Road in Memphis, where knee implants have been produced around the clock. Medtronic's 1999 agreement to acquire Memphis-based Sofamor Danek, completed in January 2000, brought a major spinal implant business into Medtronic, which continues to operate Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA in the city. Wright Medical became a wholly owned subsidiary of Stryker when that acquisition closed in November 2020.
The clinical side is equally rooted. Dr. Willis C. Campbell opened his orthopaedic practice in Memphis in 1909 and organized the orthopaedic surgery department at the University of Tennessee's new medical campus. The Campbell Clinic and the University of Tennessee Health Science Center have maintained that partnership for more than a century, and UTHSC's Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering runs its biomedical engineering program jointly with the University of Memphis. On the industry side, the Greater Memphis Medical Device Council advocates for member companies and works to close the region's biomedical workforce gap. In 2012, the Memphis Bioworks Foundation and Innova launched ZeroTo510, an accelerator built to help device entrepreneurs reach an FDA 510(k) filing.
For emerging companies, the practical consequence is that spine and extremity systems are crowded with earlier patents from well-resourced incumbents, and many new products reach market through the 510(k) pathway by comparison to an existing predicate. That combination calls for claims that clearly articulate what is new, coordinated with regulatory submissions that emphasize equivalence, and ownership arrangements that account for surgeon and academic contributors.
Patent Strategy Considerations
A 510(k) asks FDA to find your device substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate, while a patent application must show what is new and non-obvious. The two positions are compatible, but only when the technical story is managed deliberately. We coordinate claim strategy with regulatory planning so statements made in one forum do not undercut the other.
Implant systems often include interchangeable components, instruments and a surgical technique. Claims directed only to a single implant can be designed around. Layered claims covering components, their interaction, instrumentation and methods of use give a smaller company more durable coverage against larger competitors.
Innovations developed with university faculty or clinic-affiliated surgeons may be subject to institutional IP policies, and inventions made with federal research funding carry Bayh-Dole obligations and government rights. Clarifying ownership and license terms early avoids disputes when a product nears commercialization or a financing.
How Engagements Work
Knechtel Law Group is based in Carefree, Arizona. Patent prosecution and counseling before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is federal practice, and engagements with Memphis-area companies are handled directly by senior counsel by video and in person as needed. Matters that turn on state law may call for local counsel.
Request a Confidential ConsultationCommon Questions
Not for USPTO matters. U.S. patent practice is federal, and registered patent attorneys and agents can represent applicants anywhere in the country. Questions that turn on Tennessee state law, such as some contract or employment issues, may require counsel licensed in Tennessee, and we can coordinate with that counsel.
It can if the regulatory and patent narratives are developed in isolation. Substantial equivalence does not require a device to be identical to its predicate, so there is room to distinguish the patented improvement. Reviewing both together before filing reduces the risk of inconsistent characterizations.
Ownership depends on inventorship, the surgeon's employment and consulting agreements, the institution's IP policy, and whether federal funds supported the work. We review those documents and help structure assignments or licenses before development proceeds.
Discuss Your Portfolio
Schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your technology, your existing portfolio, and your plans.
Request a Confidential Consultation