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.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
burden of proof, US Supreme Court, Medtronic v Mirowski, medical devices