The US Supreme Court has again reversed a Federal Circuit decision, this time over burden of proof, says Matthew Nielsen.
What would you say to (i) limiting your liability for patent infringement by obtaining a licence that establishes a royalty rate and prevents the owner from obtaining an injunction, and then (ii) asserting in court that the patent is invalid and not infringed so you might ultimately pay the patent owner nothing?
Potentially, it’s not a bad approach.
The Supreme Court gave further incentive to aggressive strategies such as this in January in Medtronic, Inc v Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC. Relying on well-settled law and the public interest in limiting patents to their proper scope, the court held that patent owners bear the burden of persuasion when a licensee raises the issue of non-infringement in a declaratory judgment action.
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
Start a subscription today to access the LSIPR website
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at achoudhury@newtonmedia.co.uk
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
burden of proof, US Supreme Court, Medtronic v Mirowski, medical devices
