- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
March 1, 2021Amy Churan Named an Insurance Trailblazer by National Law Journal
-
March 1, 2021Firm, Partner Recognized by Managing IP
-
3/1/2021Robins Kaplan Recognized in 2021 World Trademark Review 1000
-
March 6, 2021With Our Voices 2021 Arc Gala
-
March 6, 20211st Annual Tee It Up for the Troops Winter Outing
-
March, 9, 2021The New Frontier of Software License Disputes
-
Winter 2021Pro Bono Publico–For The Public Good
-
Winter 2021The Case for Charitable Giving
-
Winter 2021The Fictional Wealth Disputes That We Took In and Learned From in 2020
-
March 2, 2021Financial Daily Dose 3.2.2021 | Top Story: U.S. Markets Bounce Back as Bonds Settle
-
March 1, 2021Financial Daily Dose 3.1.2021 | Top Story: Walmart Poaches Goldman Bankers in Bid to Bolster Fintech Venture
-
February 26, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.26.2021 | Top Story: Rising Long-Term Bond Yields Blamed for Jumpy Markets
Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al.
Achieved complete victory for Medtronic, Inc. in a dispute that Medtronic’s cardiac resynchronization devices infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,119 and RE39,897. After a bench trial, a Delaware district court held that Mirowski Family Ventures, as the patentee, bore the burden of proving infringement and failed to meet that burden, entering a judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Medtronic. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on the burden of proof issue and held that Medtronic, as the licensee, bore the burden of proving non-infringement. Medtronic filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee always bears the burden of proof, even where the licensor cannot counterclaim for infringement because of the existence of a license agreement. On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-infringement for Medtronic, awarding Medtronic a complete victory in the case.
Similar Results
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.