US Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in Medtronic v Boston Scientific

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in Medtronic v Boston Scientific

The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a case which may shed light on who has the burden of proof when a patent licensee is accused of infringing the patent.

In Medtronic v Boston Scientific, the court will consider whether a licensee challenging a declaratory judgment must demonstrate that its product does not infringe, or whether the patent holder must prove there was infringement.

The case concerns a device manufactured by Medtronic which treats heart failure, known as cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). The patent is owned by Mirowski Family Ventures, which licensed it to another company called Guidant. In 1991, Medtronic sublicensed the patent to Eli Lilly, which had taken over from Guidant as the party-in-interest.

In 2007, Mirowski claimed several Medtronic products infringed the patents. Medtronic sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

In all other patent litigation, including other declaratory judgments, the burden of proving infringement is on the patent owner. But in September last year, the Federal Circuit ruled that Medtronic had the burden of proving it did not infringe, because it had brought the action for a declaratory judgment and because it was the licensee.

The Federal Circuit said that since the only remedy sought by Medtronic was having a court declare the products in question to be non-infringing, Medtronic should bear the burden of proving it is entitled to such relief.

“A contrary result would allow licensees to use MedImmune’s shield as a sword—haling licensors into court and forcing them to assert and prove what had already been resolved by license,” wrote Judge Richard Linn on behalf of the panel.

The decision overturned a ruling by the District Court for the District of Delaware, which upheld the validity of the patents but concluded that Medtronic did not infringe.

Medtronic appealed to the Supreme Court in March this year, and the court agreed to hear the case in May.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article