Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Sup. Ct. Rules Burden of Proof Remains with Patent Owner

By Angie M. Hankins

The Supreme Court began 2014 by reversing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (Jan. 22, 2014). The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof on infringement remains with the patent owner even when a licensee files a declaratory judgment suit seeking a judgment of no infringement. Id. at 846. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion based on three legal propositions:

  • The burden of proving infringement generally rests with the patent owner;
  • The operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural; and
  • The burden of proof is substantive.

On the practical side, the Supreme Court found that:

  • Shifting the burden depending on the form of the proceeding would result in uncertainty as to the scope of the patent;
  • The patent owner is in a better position to identify infringement; and
  • Shifting the burden would make bringing a declaratory judgment proceeding “disadvantageous” as compared with just refusing to pay royalties.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the burden of proof on infringement remains with the patent owner in a declaratory judgment proceeding for non-infringement.

The Underlying Facts

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.