Supreme Court Hears Patent Fight Between Medtronic, Boston Scientific

Two medical technology giants appeared before the Supreme Court this week in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for how device makers defend their patents. 

Medtronic had requested the courts make a declaratory judgment that its pacemakers do not infringe on patents held by Mirowski Family Ventures and licensed to Boston Scientific and Guidant Corp. (which is part of Boston Scientific and Abbott Labs), according to Reuters. Declaratory judgements are requested by companies as a preventative measure against lawsuits when they sense legal uncertainty around a particular subject. 

At issue is which company should bear the burden of proof in such an instance. The court will consider "whether the burden of proof in a declaratory judgment action should be on the patent owner to prove infringement or on the accused infringer to prove non-infringement," PatentlyO reported. 

Legal precedent makes the answer debatable. 

"Under legal doctrine, the company which files a lawsuit must prove its case. In this instance, that is Medtronic. And, under the same doctrine, a company which claims infringement must prove that infringement. In this case, that would be Mirowski," Reuters reported. 

The case, Medtronic v. Boston Scientific, is the Supreme Court's first patent suit of the term, PatentlyO said. 

Jurist summarized the arguments from both sides. 

"Counsel for petitioner Medtronic argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it held that when the declaratory judgment plaintiff is the only party seeking the aid of the court, that party must bear the burden of persuasion," the summary said. 

"Counsel for the respondent Boston Scientific argued that 'there was no shifting of the burden of proof... the normal default rule is perhaps one of the most fundamental tenets of our jurisprudence. It says that if a party files a complaint and seeks relief, it has the responsibility to prove that it is entitled to that relief,'" it said. 

After oral arguments this week, at least one analyst suggested the court is likely to reverse the decision of a lower court and rule in favor of Medtronic. 

"I would mark this case down as about as clearly decided at oral argument as you can imagine," Ronald Mann of ScotusBlog wrote. The case, he said, "presented one of those surrealistic moments — when the correct answer to a problem seems so obvious to the Justices that it is difficult to imagine how it came out differently at the court below."

A ruling is expected at the end of June, Reuters said. Click here to check out briefs filed to the court in this case.