Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Exercising Restraint: Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Action Under Abstention Doctrine

By Rudy Kim and James Hancock
January 01, 2021

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on the "abstention doctrine," despite the declaratory judgment plaintiff's insistence that the underlying contract dispute required resolution of patent validity and claim scope that were within the federal courts' exclusive purview. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., et al. v. Sasso, 977 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The decision in Warsaw Orthopedic provides guidance to litigants with claims involving both state and federal issues and attempts to resolve competing Supreme Court standards governing application of the abstention doctrine.

Background

Rick A. Sasso is the inventor of a facet screw instrumentation and a headless facet screw fixation system that is used in spinal surgery (the Invention). Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) develop and market medical devices, including implant screws used in connection with spinal surgery. The parties entered into a purchase agreement in December 1999, whereby Dr. Sasso agreed to transfer all rights to his invention (including the right to patent the invention), and Medtronic agreed to make quarterly royalty payments based on Medtronic's sales of certain medical devices (broadly defined as "any device, article, system, apparatus or product including the [i]nvention" and listed in an attachment). Those payments would run until the last patent expired or, if no patents issued with "valid claim coverage" of the covered medical devices, then seven years after the first sale. Two patents ultimately issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,287,313 and 6,562,046 (respectively, the "'313 patent" and "'046 patent"). Medtronic made royalty payments from 2002 to 2018.

In June 2014, Dr. Sasso filed suit in Indiana state court for breach of contract. Dr. Sasso alleged that Medtronic was not paying royalties on sales for new products not expressly identified in the Agreement. (The Agreement contemplated that the list of covered Medical Devices "may be updated from time to time by mutual written agreement of the parties" with descriptions of "any Medical Device(s) which utilize the Invention.") Medtronic argued that it owed no royalties for those medical devices because they are not covered by any "valid claim" of the '313 or '046 patents.

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
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.

Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow! Image

As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?