Supreme Court Overturns CAFC Yet Again; Explains Basic Patent Law To The 'Patent' Court

from the this-is-becoming-a-pandemic dept

Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in patent law. After years of ignoring the issue, and leaving it in the hands of the appeals court for the federal circuit (CAFC -- which was established, in part, to hear all patent appeals), the Supreme Court has taken to regularly smacking down the CAFC, and telling it that it doesn't understand basic patent law. It's now happened again. The court has reversed yet another CAFC decision, this time concerning who has the burden of proving infringement. This was as case involved Medtronic filing for a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe on someone else's patent (Medtronic, it should be noted, has a history of being quite a patent bully itself at times). A district court had noted that the patent holder, in this case the Mirowski Family Ventures, has the burden of proof on showing infringement. CAFC said that since Medtronic brought the declaratory judgment suit that it was actually Medtronic's burden to prove that it did not infringe. The Supreme Court has reversed in an easy unanimous decision.
Simple legal logic, resting upon settled case law, strongly supports our conclusion. It is well established that the burden of proving infringement generally rests upon the patentee....
The ruling notes that a declaratory judgment filing is just a procedural issue, which doesn't change the basic substantive rights. Thus, it should be viewed as if it were the patent holder bringing the claim, leaving the burden on them. The court also points out that it would be kind of ridiculous to put the burden first on the party filing for declaratory judgment that it doesn't infringe if there's no proof that there's infringement in the first place. It would leave the plaintiff trying to prove a negative in the dark...
A patent holder is in a better position than an alleged infringer to know, and to be able to point out, just where, how, and why a product (or process) infringes a claim of that patent. Until he does so, however, the alleged infringer may have to work in the dark, seeking, in his declaratory judgment complaint, to negate every conceivable infringement theory.
Perhaps most interesting is, at the very end of the decision, Justice Breyer clearly notes that the purpose of the patent system is to benefit the public interest -- and that requires a "well-functioning" patent system, rather than a broken down patent system. As it notes, "patent monopolies" need to be "kept within their legitimate scope."

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 23 Jan 2014 @ 6:33am

    Now, this is CENSORING, kids:

    This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 2014 @ 9:58pm

    so this was not really about patent law, it is more a burden of proof and a contract law issue. Not a decision based on the technicalities or merits of the patent, as the title suggests it is.

    It is certainly NOT one court teaching "the patent court" about patents. I guess that's just TD spin..


    This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 2014 @ 10:01pm

    can you point out where (if anywhere) does the Surpreme Court say "you don't understand basic patent law"

    >"and telling it that it doesn't understand basic patent law."

    where does it say that ??? and if it does not say that anywhere why say it?


    This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 2014 @ 10:03pm

    what is it called ??
    when you say something has happened, when it really actually did not happen?

    what is that word again? (hint, it starts with L)


    Nothing even approaching limits of common law in those three comments -- which have cogent points -- yet gets censored here at "free speech" Techdirt.

    Anyone reasonable who wanders in should take note: Your "free" to agree with Techdirt's spin, otherwise entirely not wanted.

    By the way, it's highly likely that Mike himself censors these posts. I just can't believe enough people (though it may be set for very few...) would find those offensive. -- Since we can't audit Techdirt -- just have to "trust" -- it's perfectly legitimate to assume from the little evidence available that it's not readers who can't stand those opinion, but Mike censoring a particular person.

    Techdirt Axiom #1: Mike once quipped "Streisand Effect" = he's the authority on every topic.

    02:33:47[c-090-2]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.