Supreme Court will rule on patent licensing dispute
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
The impact of the recently agreed treaty may be modest at first but is likely to become more significant over time
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Gift this article