This post is a response to Patently-o's article below.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/reverses-patentees-infringement.html
In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal judgment on IP litigation between Medtronic and Mirowski. The district court sided with Medtronic because Mirowski couldn't prove infringement. However, the Supreme Court disagreed on the following grounds:
"(1) the Patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of the claim."
I think that the concept of proof is powerful in IP litigation because it's what eventually decides who walks away with some sort of intellectual monopoly. Since the Supreme Court's vote was unanimous, it seems like the situation was handled in the right way at the right time. However, it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court only ever takes a small percentage of cases that they are requested, due to time constraints. For every case like this, there are many more that slip through the cracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngHDaJiWjeQ
I agree that providing proof is extremely important in intellectual property litigation. What are several ways that we can prevent cases like this from slipping through the cracks? I read the article you linked to and I thought it was interesting, especially as a bioengineer (since the article talked about Medtronic's implantable heart stimulator patents). What I thought was an interesting point to consider (for all patents in general, not just ones of medical devices) was that a complex patent can contain an extraordinary number of claims and limitations. Thus, a patent holder is in a better position than the alleged infringer to know and be able to tell exactly how a product/process infringes the claim. Unfotunately, until the patent holder can come clear, the alleged infringer may "have to work in the dark...to negate every conceivable infringement theory". What do you think are some ways to help improve this process? The article also brought up the importance of making sure patent rights are open to challenge, in order to have a well-balanced patent system. It is interesting that in order for patents to work, people should not be afraid of arguing against them.
ReplyDeleteWe can prevent important issues from slipping through the cracks by making patent litigation more specified, and consequently, more complicated. Although that will make patent litigation more expensive and time-consuming, it might be a reasonable course of action for us to address IP cases more comprehensively.
DeleteIt's interesting to think about what the burden of proof usually is in cases like this. Is it really sufficient to point to the fact that other companies make phones shaped like rectangles with rounded corners? That's what proof points have become in the world of patent litigation, which is problematic because it makes it too easy to resort to legal action on the basis of nothing.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to detect which claims are frivolous and which are truly valid. I think some claims are worth fighting for, however specific they may seem, but I agree that there are others that are just nitpicky.
Delete