US Supreme Court unanimously overturns Federal Circuit decision in Medtronic
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

US Supreme Court unanimously overturns Federal Circuit decision in Medtronic

The US Supreme Court has unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit decision in Medtronic v Boston Scientific, reinforcing the established rule that the patent owner bears the burden of proving that infringement has occurred

The ruling overturns a September 2012 decision by the Federal Circuit, which found that in cases where a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patent holder, the licensee bears the burden of proof. The Federal Circuit reasoned that since Medtronic was asking a court to declare the products in question did not infringe, it should bear the burden of proving it was entitled to such relief.

But after hearing arguments in November last year, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that even in such cases, the patentee bears the burden of proof.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court quoted a decision in Precision Instrument Manufacturing v Automotive Maintenance Machin­ery: The public interest, of course, favours the maintenance of a well-functioning patent system. But the ‘public’ also has a ‘paramount interest in seeing that patent monopo­lies . . . are kept within their legitimate scope.'”

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing on behalf of all the justices, concluded: “The general public interest considerations are, at most, in balance. They do not favour a change in the ordinary rule imposing the burden of proving infringement upon the patentee.”

The dispute stems from 2007 claim that a device manufactured by Medtronic, known as a cardiac resynchronisation therapy, infringed patents owned by Mirowski Family Ventures, which licensed them to Boston Scientific. The parties had agreed that Medtronic would sub-license the patents and pay royalties on any new products it made which used the technology they covered.

But the parties disagreed on whether Medtronic’s CRT products used technology covered by the patents. The District Court for the District of Delaware found that the patents were valid and enforceable but that Medtronic did not violate them.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article