US Supreme Court Holds That a Patentee Bears the Burden of Persuasion on the Issue of Infringement in a Declaratory Judgment Action

Download IconDownload Print IconPrint

US Supreme Court Holds That a Patentee Bears the Burden of Persuasion on the Issue of Infringement in a Declaratory Judgment Action

Client Alert

Authors

Related Solutions

Providing comprehensive solutions for the acquisition, enforcement and protection of IP.
A global team handling highly complex and sensitive matters in all aspects of litigation.
Clients trust us to protect their most important intellectual property matters.

By patenting their innovations, our clients increase the value of their intellectual property and enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace. We work with laboratory and research teams and R&D and product development groups to determine whether, when and where it is in our clients’ business and technical interests to seek patent protection. And we don’t just file patent applications. Drawing on our experience with patent litigation, corporate financings and technology transactions, we implement IP strategies that conserve resources, add measurable value and give our clients a cost-effective and commercially practical competitive edge.

We help clients obtain more than 750 US and foreign patents each year, covering innovations that span the technological spectrum, including aerospace, biochemistry, biotechnology, business methods, chemistry, computer science, fuel cells, genetics, high-speed data communication, integrated circuits, materials science, medical devices, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices and processes, and software.

We also prepare and prosecute patent applications internationally under the Patent Cooperative Treaty and by working with a network of seasoned patent lawyers around the world. Our experience extends to appeals, interferences and opposition proceedings within the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the European Patent Office.

Combining our trial and appellate strengths allows us to shape litigation strategy from the outset to maximize the likelihood of ultimate success.
We advise clients on the smartest, most cost-effective ways to challenge or defend issued patents.
We leverage technical knowledge, business acumen and legal experience to structure, prepare and negotiate innovative and effective technology-related agreements.
Comprehensive counseling for healthcare providers, insurers and the companies that supply them with products and services.

In an unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court has held that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of patent infringement in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee, just as it would in an infringement suit. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 12-1128 (US Jan. 22, 2014). The Court reversed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the declaratory plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion when a patentee is a declaratory judgment defendant and is foreclosed from asserting an infringement counterclaim due to a license.

Mirowski licensed its patents to Medtronic. The agreement allowed Mirowski to give Medtronic notice that it believed a new Medtronic product infringed a Mirowski patent and accordingly was subject to royalties under the license. Op. at 2. Then, Medtronic could pay the royalties or challenge infringement in a declaratory judgment action while accumulating disputed royalties in an escrow account. Id. In 2007, Mirowski exercised the agreement and gave Medtronic notice that seven new products infringed its patents. Medtronic brought a declaratory judgment action in the US District Court in Delaware and paid royalties into an escrow account per the agreement. Id. at 2-3. The district court eventually ruled that Mirowski had failed to carry its burden of proving that Medtronic's products infringed the asserted patents. The Federal Circuit reversed, however, ruling that the district court should have assigned Medtronic the burden of proving that its products did not infringe and thus were not royalty-bearing.

In an unanimous opinion written by Justice Breyer, the US Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit. The Court ruled that well-settled case law supported placing the burden on the patentee. First, established case law shows that the patentee has the burden of proving infringement. Id. at 6. Second, the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural and does not alter substantive rules of law, of which the burden of proof is one. Id. at 7. Further, practical considerations favor the Court's conclusion. Keeping the burden with the patentee reduces post-litigation uncertainty regarding the scope of the patent and whether products infringe. Id. Further, the patentee is in a better position to prove infringement because it knows its theory of infringement, while the licensee (accused infringer) would merely be guessing as to the patentee's infringement theory. Lastly, the very purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act was to allow parties threatened with assertions of liability to seek an adjudication of their responsibilities without incurring any further disadvantage; placing the burden of persuasion on a licensee-plaintiff would be just such a disadvantage. Id. at 8-9.

Although the Federal Circuit cited the "ordinary default rule" that a plaintiff bears the burden of proof, declaratory judgment suits are an exception to the basic rule. Id. at 9-10.

The Court also rejected arguments raised by an amicus curiae that the Federal Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction over the case. The Court ruled that Medtronic's declaratory judgment action arose under federal patent law, because Mirowski would have been able to sue for infringement had Medtronic ceased to pay royalties. Id. at 5-6.

Authors

Notice

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link.(The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.

I Accept Cancel