Skip to content

Menu

Published by Mihai Vrasmasu
HomeAboutServicesContactDisclaimer
Search
Close

Clinical Robotics Law Journal

Focusing on legal trends and developments in clinical robotics

The Healing Touch: Haptic Feedback and the State-of-the-Art Defense

Touch 1
By Mihai Vrasmasu on February 20, 2019
Posted in Litigation, Surgical Robot

As more and more surgical robots make their way into operating rooms, companies are learning valuable lessons about how their devices function in the real world.  Though many existing design features are proving highly effective, physician response suggests that current systems should evolve to include additional capabilities, like “haptic feedback.”  While discussing what it’s like to perform surgery without it, a UCLA associate professor of electrical engineering recently explained, “You can see what you’re doing, but imagine trying to tie your shoes without having a sense of touch.”

Today, private companies and institutions like UCLA are developing technologies that will one day give surgeons the ability to not only see but also feel during robotic surgeries. One such technology accomplishes this “through  [a] sensor that, when placed on the tips of surgical instruments, would provide feedback [in the form of vibrations, forces and buzzes] on the various forces exerted on body tissues to better guide surgery.”  Given the numerous obvious benefits of physicians feeling the tissue on which they operate, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to assume that in the not too distant future, haptic feedback will be considered a state-of-the-art function in surgical robots.

Product liability laws in many states look to whether a device represented the state-of-the-art at the time of its manufacture.  In Florida for example, Florida Statute Section 768.1257 sets out the state-of-the-art defense as follows: “In an action based upon defective design, brought against the manufacturer of a product, the finder of fact shall consider the state of the art of scientific and technical knowledge and other circumstances that existed at the time of manufacture, not at the time of loss or injury.”

Surgical robot manufacturers that are either currently marketing units or in the process of launching new competitor devices should give serious consideration to incorporating haptic feedback into their products.  Those companies that are not interested in licensing or otherwise acquiring this feature should invest into developing their own in-house technologies.  Failing to do so now may result not only in an inferior product down the line, but also in one that is much more difficult to defend in the event of litigation.

Tags: Design Defect Claims, Florida law, haptic feedback, state-of-the-art defense, surgical robot
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Mihai Vrasmasu Mihai Vrasmasu

Mihai Vrasmasu is a Partner in the Miami office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He represents multiple clients—including Fortune 100 pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers—facing complex product liability claims involving medical devices and prescription drugs.

Read more about Mihai VrasmasuMihai's Linkedin Profile
Related Posts
back-pain-1911009
Surgical Robot End User v. Manufacturer
August 28, 2023
question-mark-6786620
Is Your Artificial Intelligence a Service or a Product?
September 12, 2022
Nuts and Bolts
Defeat Design Defect Claims Before They’re Filed
May 18, 2022

About the Author

Photo of Mihai VrasmasuMihai VrasmasuPartner

Mihai Vrasmasu is a Partner in the Miami office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He represents multiple clients—including Fortune 100 pharmaceutical and medical device…

Mihai Vrasmasu is a Partner in the Miami office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He represents multiple clients—including Fortune 100 pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers—facing complex product liability claims involving medical devices and prescription drugs.

Show more Show less

Stay Connected

Twitter RSS LinkedIn

Topics

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Surgical Robot End User v. Manufacturer
  • 4 Common Ways That AI Driven Medical Devices Can Fail
  • Is Your Artificial Intelligence a Service or a Product?
  • Defeat Design Defect Claims Before They’re Filed
  • Mitigating The Risks Of Training Curriculum Modification Requests

Shook Network

  • Data Security Law Journal
  • Mass Tort Defense
Mihai Vrasmasu
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
201 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Suite 3200
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305.358.5171
Fax: 305.358.7470
Email: mvrasmasu@shb.com
Twitter RSS LinkedIn
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2023, Mihai Vrasmasu. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo