medtronic
mirowski
family
ventures
llc
argued
november
decided
january
petitioner
medtronic
designs
makes
sells
medical
devices
respondent
mirowski
family
ventures
llc
owns
patents
relating
implantable
heart
stimulators
licensing
agreement
permits
medtronic
practice
certain
mirowski
patents
exchange
royalty
payments
specifies
procedures
identify
products
covered
license
resolve
disputes
parties
pursuant
procedures
mirowski
notified
medtronic
belief
several
medtronic
products
infringed
licensed
patents
medtronic
challenged
assertion
infringement
declaratory
judgment
action
accumulating
disputed
royalties
escrow
account
distribution
prevailing
party
district
concluded
mirowski
party
asserting
infringement
burden
proving
infringement
mirowski
met
burden
federal
circuit
disagreed
acknowledged
patentee
normally
bears
burden
proof
concluded
patentee
declaratory
judgment
defendant
like
mirowski
foreclosed
asserting
infringement
counterclaim
continued
existence
licensing
agreement
party
seeking
declaratory
judgment
namely
medtronic
bears
burden
persuasion
held
federal
circuit
lack
jurisdiction
case
title
gives
federal
district
courts
exclusive
jurisdiction
civil
action
arising
act
congress
relating
patents
gives
federal
circuit
appellate
jurisdiction
case
jurisdiction
district
based
whole
part
section
declaratory
judgment
act
extend
federal
courts
jurisdiction
skelly
oil
phillips
petroleum
federal
courts
determining
declaratory
judgment
jurisdiction
often
look
character
declaratory
judgment
defendant
threatened
action
public
serv
utah
wycoff
whether
defendant
hypothetical
coercive
action
necessarily
present
federal
question
franchise
tax
bd
cal
construction
laborers
vacation
trust
southern
medtronic
acted
consistent
understanding
rights
seeks
establish
declaratory
judgment
suit
ceasing
pay
royalties
mirowski
terminate
license
bring
suit
infringement
suit
arise
federal
patent
law
patent
law
creates
cause
action
christianson
colt
industries
operating
thus
declaratory
judgment
action
avoids
hypothetical
threatened
action
also
arises
federal
patent
law
see
nat
bank
los
angeles
franchise
tax
bd
pp
licensee
seeks
declaratory
judgment
patentee
products
infringe
licensed
patent
patentee
bears
burden
persuasion
issue
infringement
pp
conclusion
strongly
supported
three
settled
legal
propositions
first
patentee
ordinarily
bears
burden
proving
infringement
see
agawam
jordan
wall
second
operation
declaratory
judgment
act
procedural
aetna
life
ins
haworth
leaving
substantive
rights
unchanged
beacon
theatres
westover
third
burden
proof
aspect
claim
raleigh
illinois
dept
revenue
practical
considerations
lead
conclusion
shifting
burden
based
form
action
create
postlitigation
uncertainty
patent
scope
may
also
create
unnecessary
complexity
compelling
licensee
prove
negative
finally
burden
shifting
difficult
reconcile
declaratory
judgment
act
purpose
ameliorating
dilemma
posed
putting
one
challenging
patent
scope
choice
abandoning
rights
risking
suit
medimmune
genentech
extent
federal
circuit
burden
shifting
rule
makes
declaratory
judgment
procedure
disadvantageous
rule
recreates
dilemma
declaratory
judgment
act
sought
avoid
pp
several
arguments
contrary
unconvincing
first
schaffer
weast
noted
ordinary
default
rule
plaintiffs
risk
failing
prove
claims
support
federal
circuit
conclusion
schaffer
declaratory
judgment
case
described
exceptions
basic
burden
proof
rule
reasons
explained
case
declaratory
judgment
suits
like
one
exception
schaffer
default
rule
second
fact
federal
circuit
limited
holding
circumstance
license
forecloses
infringement
counterclaim
patentee
show
holding
legally
justified
third
contrary
one
amicus
concern
holding
permit
licensees
force
patent
holders
infringement
litigation
litigation
occur
genuine
sufficiently
immedia
te
dispute
patent
validity
application
medimmune
supra
mirowski
set
dispute
motion
accusing
medtronic
infringement
convincing
reason
burden
proof
law
favor
patentee
general
considerations
relating
public
interest
maintaining
patent
system
balance
favor
changing
ordinary
burden
proof
rule
pp
reversed
remanded
breyer
delivered
opinion
unanimous
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
medtronic
petitioner
mirowski
family
ventures
llc
writ
certiorari
appeals
federal
circuit
january
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
patentee
ordinarily
bears
burden
proving
infringement
agawam
jordan
wall
case
asks
us
decide
whether
burden
proof
shifts
patentee
defendant
declaratory
judgment
action
plaintiff
potential
infringer
seeks
judgment
infringe
patent
hold
licensee
seeks
declaratory
judgment
patentee
establish
infringement
burden
proving
infringement
remains
patentee
reverse
federal
circuit
determination
contrary
set
forth
simplified
version
facts
parties
medtronic
firm
among
things
designs
makes
sells
medical
devices
mirowski
family
ventures
llc
firm
owns
patents
relating
implantable
heart
stimulators
medtronic
mirowski
entered
agreement
permitting
medtronic
practice
certain
mirowski
patents
exchange
royalty
payments
less
simplified
form
mirowski
entered
license
agreement
eli
lilly
sublicensed
mirowski
patents
medtronic
guidant
eli
lilly
successor
interest
present
purposes
shall
ignore
eli
lilly
guidant
parties
mirowski
side
using
mirowski
refer
agreement
also
provided
mirowski
gave
notice
medtronic
new
medtronic
product
infringe
mirowski
patent
medtronic
choice
app
medtronic
simply
cure
nonpayment
royalties
ibid
pay
royalties
time
challenge
assertion
infringement
mirowski
patents
declaratory
judgment
action
ibid
medtronic
course
might
ignore
agreement
decide
pay
royalties
case
mirowski
right
terminate
icense
wished
bring
infringement
action
parties
entered
agreement
slightly
modified
procedure
resolving
disputes
medtronic
received
timely
written
notice
infringement
chose
pursue
declaratory
judgment
action
challenging
infringement
accumulate
disputed
royalties
escrow
account
prevailing
party
declaratory
judgment
action
receive
royalties
parties
found
midst
infringement
dispute
mirowski
gave
medtronic
notice
believed
seven
new
medtronic
products
violated
various
claims
contained
two
patents
related
devices
cause
heart
ventricles
contract
simultaneously
heart
beats
medtronic
thought
products
infringe
mirowski
patents
either
products
fell
outside
scope
patent
claims
patents
invalid
medtronic
brought
declaratory
judgment
action
federal
district
delaware
sought
declaration
products
infringe
mirowski
patents
patents
invalid
agreement
mirowski
provided
medtronic
paid
relevant
royalties
escrow
account
district
recognized
mirowski
defendant
action
nonetheless
believed
mirowski
part
asserting
infringement
bore
burden
proving
infringement
medtronic
boston
scientific
supp
del
see
sea
industries
dacor
ca
fed
burden
always
patentee
show
infringement
bench
trial
found
mirowski
proved
infringement
either
directly
doctrine
equivalents
since
mirowski
patentee
bore
burden
proof
lost
supp
appeals
federal
circuit
considered
burden
proof
question
came
opposite
conclusion
held
medtronic
declaratory
judgment
plaintiff
bore
burden
acknowledged
normally
patentee
accused
infringer
bears
burden
proving
infringement
burden
normally
shift
even
patentee
counterclaiming
defendant
declaratory
judgment
action
nonetheless
appeals
believed
different
rule
applies
patentee
declaratory
judgment
defendant
like
mirowski
foreclosed
asserting
infringement
counterclaim
continued
existence
license
case
appeals
held
party
seeking
declaratory
judgment
noninfringement
namely
medtronic
bears
burden
persuasion
ibid
medtronic
sought
certiorari
asking
us
review
federal
circuit
burden
proof
rule
light
importance
burdens
proof
patent
litigation
granted
petition
ii
begin
jurisdictional
matter
amicus
claims
must
vacate
federal
circuit
decision
lacked
jurisdiction
amicus
agrees
parties
gives
federal
district
courts
exclusive
jurisdiction
civil
action
arising
act
congress
relating
patents
emphasis
added
moreover
version
governing
appeal
gives
federal
circuit
exclusive
appellate
jurisdiction
case
jurisdiction
district
based
whole
part
section
amicus
says
determining
whether
case
civil
action
arising
act
congress
relating
patents
must
look
nature
action
declaratory
judgment
defendant
namely
patentee
mirowski
brought
absence
declaratory
judgment
action
amicus
adds
significant
argument
jurisdiction
patent
infringement
action
rather
action
damages
breach
contract
namely
action
breach
licensing
contract
patent
infringement
central
issue
see
brief
tessera
technologies
amicus
curiae
agree
amicus
declaratory
judgment
act
extend
jurisdiction
federal
courts
skelly
oil
phillips
petroleum
also
agree
federal
courts
determining
declaratory
judgment
jurisdiction
often
look
character
threatened
action
public
serv
utah
wycoff
say
ask
whether
coercive
action
brought
declaratory
judgment
defendant
mirowski
necessarily
present
federal
question
franchise
tax
bd
cal
construction
laborers
vacation
trust
southern
agree
amicus
characterization
threatened
coercive
action
mirowski
might
brought
patent
licensing
agreement
specifies
medtronic
stops
paying
royalties
mirowski
terminate
contract
bring
ordinary
patent
infringement
action
action
arise
federal
patent
law
federal
patent
law
creates
cause
action
christianson
colt
industries
operating
amicus
says
infringement
suit
unlikely
relevant
question
relevant
question
concerns
nature
threatened
action
absence
declaratory
judgment
suit
medtronic
believes
seeks
establish
declaratory
judgment
suit
owe
royalties
products
noninfringing
medtronic
act
belief
paying
royalties
bringing
declaratory
judgment
action
mirowski
terminate
license
bring
ordinary
federal
patent
law
action
infringement
see
brief
respondent
acknowledging
medtronic
chosen
pay
royalties
subjected
suit
infringement
consequently
declaratory
judgment
action
avoids
threatened
action
also
arises
federal
patent
law
see
franchise
tax
supra
wycoff
supra
see
also
medimmune
genentech
concluding
article
iii
requirement
patent
licensee
faced
threat
suit
ceased
making
payments
license
agreement
notwithstanding
licensee
continued
royalty
payments
rendered
prospect
suit
remote
nonexistent
reason
believe
hypothetical
threatened
action
properly
characterized
action
arising
act
congress
relating
patents
iii
turn
question
presented
patent
paying
royalties
escrow
account
licensing
agreement
seeks
declaratory
judgment
products
covered
infringe
patent
therefore
owe
royalties
products
suit
bears
burden
proof
precise
burden
persuasion
must
patentee
prove
infringement
must
licensee
prove
noninfringement
view
burden
persuasion
patentee
patentee
brought
infringement
suit
simple
legal
logic
resting
upon
settled
case
law
strongly
supports
conclusion
well
established
burden
proving
infringement
generally
rests
upon
patentee
see
imhaeuser
buerk
burden
prove
infringement
never
shifts
alleged
infringer
charge
denied
plea
answer
agawam
infringement
affirmative
allegation
made
complainant
burden
proving
upon
see
also
sea
industries
burden
always
patentee
show
infringement
chisum
burden
proof
factual
issues
relating
infringement
rests
upon
patent
owner
long
considered
operation
declaratory
judgment
act
procedural
aetna
life
ins
haworth
leaving
substantive
rights
unchanged
beacon
theatres
westover
see
also
vaden
discover
bank
skelly
oil
noting
limited
procedural
purpose
declaratory
judgment
act
held
burden
proof
aspect
claim
raleigh
illinois
dept
revenue
director
office
workers
compensation
programs
greenwich
collieries
assignment
burden
proof
rule
substantive
law
garrett
burden
proof
part
substance
plaintiff
claim
considered
mere
incident
form
procedure
taken
together
three
legal
propositions
indicate
licensee
declaratory
judgment
action
burden
proving
infringement
remain
patentee
several
practical
considerations
lead
conclusion
shift
burden
depending
upon
form
action
create
postlitigation
uncertainty
scope
patent
suppose
evidence
inconclusive
alleged
infringer
loses
declaratory
judgment
action
failed
prove
noninfringement
alleged
infringer
others
might
continue
engage
allegedly
infringing
behavior
leaving
patentee
bring
infringement
action
burden
shifts
patentee
might
lose
action
evidence
inconclusive
failed
prove
infringement
sides
might
lose
infringement
leaving
infringement
question
undecided
creating
uncertainty
among
parties
others
seek
know
products
processes
free
use
example
fanciful
restatement
second
judgments
says
relitigation
issue
say
infringement
decided
one
suit
precluded
subsequent
suit
burden
persuasion
shifted
party
preclusion
sought
adversary
restatement
second
judgments
rather
ailure
one
party
carry
burden
persuasion
issue
establish
issue
favor
adversary
otherwise
burden
persuasion
issue
later
litigation
wright
miller
cooper
federal
practice
procedure
ed
thus
declaratory
judgment
suit
example
failed
achieve
object
provide
immediate
definitive
determination
legal
rights
parties
aetna
supra
moreover
shift
burden
least
occasion
create
unnecessary
complexity
making
difficult
licensee
understand
upon
theory
patentee
infringement
claim
rests
complex
patent
contain
many
pages
claims
limitations
patent
holder
better
position
alleged
infringer
know
able
point
product
process
infringes
claim
patent
however
alleged
infringer
may
work
dark
seeking
declaratory
judgment
complaint
negate
every
conceivable
infringement
theory
finally
burden
shifting
difficult
reconcile
basic
purpose
declaratory
judgment
act
medimmune
genentech
case
similarly
concerned
patent
licensee
brought
declaratory
judgment
action
patentee
accused
infringement
wrote
act
dilemma
posed
putting
one
challenges
patent
scope
choice
abandoning
rights
risking
suit
quoting
abbott
laboratories
gardner
absence
declaratory
judgment
procedure
medtronic
face
precise
dilemma
medimmune
describes
either
medtronic
abandon
right
challenge
scope
mirowski
patents
stop
paying
royalties
risk
losing
ordinary
patent
infringement
lawsuit
thereby
risk
liability
treble
damages
attorney
fees
well
injunctive
relief
see
providing
injunctive
relief
treble
damages
exceptional
cases
attorney
fees
remedies
patent
infringement
medimmune
declaratory
judgment
action
rescues
medtronic
dilemma
federal
circuit
burden
shifting
rule
deprive
medtronic
right
seek
declaratory
judgment
create
significant
obstacle
use
action
makes
declaratory
judgment
procedure
compared
say
refusing
pay
royalties
extent
recreates
dilemma
declaratory
judgment
act
sought
avoid
made
clear
explain
strong
reason
creating
obstacle
convinced
arguments
raised
contrary
first
federal
circuit
thought
found
support
recent
case
schaffer
weast
case
referred
ordinary
default
rule
placing
upon
plaintiffs
risk
failing
prove
claims
added
plaintiffs
normally
parties
seeking
relief
medtronic
mirowski
declaratory
judgment
plaintif
schaffer
however
declaratory
judgment
case
schaffer
described
exceptions
basic
burden
proof
rule
element
claim
fairly
characterized
affirmative
defens
burden
proof
may
shifted
defendants
ordinary
rule
based
considerations
fairness
place
burden
upon
litigant
establishing
facts
peculiarly
within
knowledge
quoting
new
york
reasons
set
forth
part
supra
declaratory
judgment
suits
like
one
issue
constitute
exception
basic
rule
schaffer
described
second
federal
circuit
emphasized
holding
applied
limited
circumstance
infringement
counterclaim
patentee
foreclosed
continued
existence
license
fact
federal
circuit
opinion
limited
however
support
conclusion
limited
described
often
present
patent
licensee
faces
ordinary
disputed
claim
infringement
circumstance
virtually
identical
medimmune
found
declaratory
judgment
action
constitutionally
permissible
event
fact
rule
scope
limited
show
rule
legally
justified
third
amicus
supporting
mirowski
fears
holding
unlike
federal
circuit
rule
burden
patent
owners
permitting
licensee
sole
discretion
force
patentee
litigation
brief
intellectual
property
owners
association
amicus
curiae
short
answer
argument
however
litigation
occur
presence
genuine
dispute
sufficient
immediacy
reality
patent
validity
application
medimmune
supra
quoting
maryland
casualty
pacific
coal
oil
indeed
mirowski
set
present
dispute
motion
accusing
medtronic
infringement
instance
see
convincing
reason
burden
proof
law
favor
patentee
public
interest
course
favors
maintenance
patent
system
public
also
paramount
interest
seeing
patent
monopolies
kept
within
legitimate
scope
precision
instrument
mfg
automotive
maintenance
machinery
patentee
allowed
exact
royalties
use
idea
beyond
scope
patent
monopoly
granted
laboratories
university
foundation
icensees
may
often
individuals
enough
economic
incentive
litigate
questions
patent
scope
lear
adkins
general
public
interest
considerations
balance
favor
change
ordinary
rule
imposing
burden
proving
infringement
upon
patentee
reasons
judgment
federal
circuit
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered