Medtronics

News & Analysis as of

US and EU Regulatory Agencies Approve $43B Medtronic & Covidien Merger US and EU Regulatory Agencies Approve $43B Medtronic &...

Med Device Online reports that Medtronic has been cleared by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and EU’s European Commission to merge with Covidien. Also according to Med Device Online, the companies had to agree that...more

Board Considers Proof of Diligent Reduction to Practice

Patent Owner’s attempt to disqualify prior art in an inter partes review failed because it could not show diligence from conception to reduction to practice in Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. Troy R. Norred, M.D., IPR2014-00395,...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.

Decision Date: March 21, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D652,922 - Holding: Petition to Institute Inter Partes Review DENIED - Opinion: Medtronic, Inc. filed a petition...more

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review When Ongoing Proceedings Raise Substantially Similar Arguments

In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more

Make That First Bite A Big One

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Marital Deduction Trust, IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 (September 25, 2014), the Board denied Medtronic’s motion to join the IPR with a prior IPR 2014-00100, also involving U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417. The...more

False claims by any other name: Medtronic and Omnicare cases illustrate the interplay between the False Claims Act and other...

- Government allegations of Medtronic’s alleged incentives to physicians for prescribing its medical devices lead company, while denying wrongdoing, to settle False Claims Act suit predicated on Anti-Kickback...more

Supreme Court Reinforces Need for Robust Adverse Event Reporting Process

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Medtronic, Inc. v. Stengel, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision permitting a failure-to-warn claim against a pre-market approval (PMA)...more

Legal Alert: UPDATE: The Hare Loses Steam – Patent Litigation Reform Law Unlikely This Year

Efforts by the U.S. Senate to pass an alternative to the Innovation Act, which aims to reform abusive patent litigation, have stalled. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is leading the effort, has announced that his committee is tabling...more

Edwards Secures Preliminary Injunction Against Medtronic

On April 11, 2014, according to a press release, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a preliminary injunction barring Medtronic, Inc. from selling its CoreValve TAVI product to most new customers in...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q1 2014

OCTANE FITNESS V. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS* - Patent: Argument: February 26, 2014 - Issue: Whether the Federal Circuit’s two-part test for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 – that it...more

March 5, 2014

New Filings - Medtronic, Inc. filed IPR2014-00487 challenging claims 1-14, 19, 20, and 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 on Systems and Methods of Spinal Fusion, assigned to Nuvasive, Inc. ...more

Replacing a Certificate of Translation is a Correction of a Clerical Error, Not a Submission of Supplemental Information

In Medtroinc. Inc., v NuVasive, Inc., [IPR2014-00075], Paper 10 (February 28, 2014), Medtronic wanted to submit a corrected certificate for the translation of Exhibit 1002, but the NuVasive opposed arguing the that corrected...more

Federal Circuit Review - February 2014

Defendant Bears Burden of Proof in Declaratory Judgment Case - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Venture, LLC, Appeal No. 12-1128, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s determination that the burden of...more

Failure to Clearly List Intermediate Applications Breaks Chain of Priority - Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences...

Addressing the issue of whether a failure to specifically reference each earlier filed patent applications will result in a loss of claim of priority to the omitted application, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

The Burden is on You: A Defendant Patent Holder Still Bears the Burden of Proving Infringement in a Declaratory Judgment Action...

For nearly 150 years, it has been established that a patent holder (“patentee”) ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571...more

Supreme Court Rules That Patent Owner Always Bears the Burden of Proof on Patent Infringement

In a nine to zero decision authored by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that the...more

Unanimous Supreme Court to Federal Circuit: Burden of Proof on Infringement on Patentee, Even in Declaratory Judgment - Medtronic,...

A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision authored by Justice Breyer, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of...more

Federal Circuit Finds Hole in “This” Priority Claim

In Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the patent at issue was invalid because of a defective priority claim. While practitioners may cringe...more

Supreme Court Rules Patentee Always Bears Burden of Proving Infringement

In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Patentees Bear the Burden of Proof of Infringement in DJ Actions Brought by Licensee

A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Burden of Proving Infringement Does Not Shift to Licensees in Declaratory Judgment Actions

The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more

Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

The Federal Circuit's decision in Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. provides a warning for patent practitioners seeking to claim priority to earlier filed patent applications: failure to specifically...more

Medtronic v. MFV — Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses Federal Circuit: Holding Patentees Always Bear the Burden of Proving...

Jan. 23, 2014 — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures (previously listed as Medtronic v. Boston Scientific), holding that the burden of proving...more

Patent Owners’ Heavy Burdens: Proof of Infringement

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a unanimous opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 12-1128, on January 22, 2014, holding that patent owners bear...more

Unanimous Supreme Court: Burden of Proof on Infringement Always on Patentee

In terms of the question presented, the Supreme Court of the United States answered that when a licensee seeks declaratory judgment against a patentee, asserting that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, “the...more

38 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2