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.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
burden of proof, US Supreme Court, Medtronic v Mirowski, medical devices