Supreme Court will rule on patent licensing dispute

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

Supreme Court will rule on patent licensing dispute

The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to accept a patent dispute between Boston Scientific and medical devices manufacturer Medtronic

The case, Medtronic v Boston Scientific, concerns patents relating to a device made by Medtronic known as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The equipment tracks the patient’s heartbeat to ensure both the right and left ventricles contract simultaneously, and administers electric shocks to restore the proper balance if they get out of sync.

The patents are owned by Mirowski Family Ventures, which licensed them exclusively to Natick, Massachusetts-based Boston Scientific.

The companies agreed that Medtronic would license the patents and pay royalties if it produced any new products which used the technology covered by them.

In 2007, Mirowski alleged that new products Medtronic was developing qualified for royalty fees.

Medtronic subsequently sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not infringed the patents, US reissue patents RE38,119 and RE39,897. Medtronic claims that the onus falls on the patent owner to prove infringement.

A Delaware court ruled that Medtronic was not infringing, but the Federal Circuit overturned the decision in September 2012, concluding that the onus was on Medtronic to prove that it hadn’t infringed.

Usually, the burden of proving infringement falls to the patent holder. But the Federal Circuit reversed this approach, deciding instead to shift the burden to Medtronic because the Fridley-based company was a licensee seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

The Supreme Court will now review whether the Federal Circuit’s decision to shift the burden was correct. Medtronic claims the appellate court’s ruling creates a loophole allowing patent owners a risk-free way to increase the scope of their licenses to cover new products.

Medtronic has so far been represented by Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi in the case and Mirowski has been represented by Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Working with Harvey and Microsoft, the firm has been at the forefront of developing AI tools for its lawyers, and is now exploring new projects and business models
The Emotional Perception AI case, which centres on the patentability of an artificial neural network, will be heard next week
Developments included a court order related to InterDigital’s anti-anti-suit injunction against Disney, and clarification on recoverable costs
Partners at Foley Hoag examine how recent CJEU jurisprudence may serve as a catalyst for recalibrating US judicial reluctance to entertain foreign patent claims
International law firms have high hopes for their IP practices in Saudi Arabia, with many opening offices, but recruiting and retaining talent in the Kingdom presents unique challenges
Patrick Ogola joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss helping African entrepreneurs on the global stage, and explains why young lawyers should speak up
Heli Pihlajamaa, the EPO’s principal director for patent law and procedures, joins us to take stock of the unitary patent following its second anniversary
Kelly Thompson, chair of South African firm Adams & Adams, discusses self-belief, self-doubt, and the importance of saying yes
The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
Gift this article