Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Supreme Court: Patent Holders Must Prove Infringment

Posted by timothy on from the telling-mom-what-you-did dept.

jfruh writes "The Supreme Court issued a ruling that might help marginally curb patent madness. Ruling on a case between Medtronic and Mirowski Family Ventures, the court rules that the burden of proof in patent infringement cases is always on the patent holder. This is true even in the specific case at hand, in which Medtronic sought a declaratory judgement that it was not violating the Mirowski patents."

10 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Now the next step... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    placing the burden on the patent holder to prove the patent is NOT the result of:

    - Patent slamming to game the system (e.g. submitting the same fucking thing 100 different times hoping one submission will slip by an overworked patent reviewer)
    - Patenting something already patented
    - Patenting something that is already obvious
    - Submarine-patenting

    1. Re:Now the next step... by manquer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (e.g. submitting the same fucking thing 100 different times hoping one submission will slip by an overworked patent reviewer)

      I am not a fan of the current patenting system, but this is BS, a patent application costs $10,000, if the patent reviewer is overworked it has nothing to do with the abuse of the system, even considering a cost of $200,000 to the USPTO per patent reviewer including all the overheads a reviewer has to only review 20 patents a year to make the system viable.

    2. Re:Now the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am not a fan of the current patenting system, but this is BS, a patent application costs $10,000

      LOL...if someone is charging you $10K to file it for you, then you are getting ripped off.

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee010114.htm

  2. Costly discovery? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see this leading to some pretty costly discovery for companies being sued.

    Because it's going to amount to "in order for us to prove you violated our patent, we need you to hand over all of your information so we can find the proof".

    I hope there is a provision for saying "OK, but we're going to charge you $100 million for our time in getting this" -- because otherwise this just allows the patent trolls to cause the people they accuse to incur massive costs which might make settling cheaper.

    You shouldn't be able to make someone bear the cost of you suing them based on something you can't prove without them doing the work for you.

    This reminds me of the SCO lawsuit, where the most they ever found was, what, 7 lines of infringing code which SCO themselves had nicked from AT&T UNIX?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Costly discovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is EXACTLY the problem right now: filing an infringement claim is trivial, it only requires the plaintiff to assert infringement (not detail it). That currently triggers discovery which is costly for the defendant. Defendants thus settle for less than the cost of discovery. That is the essence of legal blackmail/patent trolling.

      SUPPORT PATENT REFORM IN THE SENATE.

      The markup happens in March. There is a hearing today as well.

      Stay early discovery or require costs to be borne by the plaintiff.
      Permit fee shifting when plaintiff's lose.
      Identify the real party in interest and REQUIRE a bond - shell companies currently do most of the trolling and are judgment proof (have no assets).
      PROTECT END USERS - using an API can get you a patent infringement lawsuit (if the API is alleged to infringe), offering wireless in your cafe gets you sued (because Cisco allegedly infringed on someones patent and you are using their device).

  3. Yawn.... by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A plaintiff always bears the burden of proof in showing that he is entitled to the relief requested from the court. For patent infringement, that means showing a patent has been infringed.

    The only reason this is in the news is because the appellate court (the CAFC) screwed it up one time, and the Supreme Court had to make a return to sanity.

    1. Re:Yawn.... by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correct. The long version: The plaintiff in a patent case is usually the patent-holder, who is seeking damages for infringement. In those cases, the patent-holder-plaintiff already had the burden of proof. In this case, the (potentially infringing) plaintiff is seeking protection from patent infringement lawsuits by suing the patent holder, requiring the (patent holder) defendant to prove that the patents are valid and/or that the plaintiff infringes the patents. Normally (and the appeals court found), the plaintiff would have the burden of proof. According to the appellate ruling, the plaintiff (potential infringer, seeking protection) would have to prove that they were not infringing, or prove that the patents were invalid. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court ruling: The patent holder, whether plaintiff or defendant, must prove that the other party (plaintiff or defendant) infringed the patents, and that the patents are valid.

      --
      Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
  4. DOS Patent Trolls? by luciano.moretti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How hard would it be for OpenSource Projects and Small Companies to file for a declarative judgement lawsuit for every software patent held by trolls? I'm assuming that filing fees would get cost prohibitive quickly, but would we be able to DOS attack the patent trolls and the courts they use to prove the point?

  5. Re:Haha wow by fast+turtle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now Google can fight MS in regards to their claims of Patent Infringenment in Android and force them to prove it. If they fail, then MS is going to be out lots of money for the licenses they've charged for.

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  6. You are misinterpreting this ruling. by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you sue someone for patent infringement you have always had the burden of proof, even before this ruling. All this ruling is saying is that if you threaten to sue someone, and they go to a judge first asking you to put-up or shut-up, the burden is still on you as the patent holder, same as if you had sued them.

    Secondly, this ruling does nothing to limit the discovery process. As a small inventor suing a big company you still have the same subpoena powers during discovery as you did before.

    In other words, the Supreme Court simply reaffirmed that accused infringers are innocent until proven guilty, regardless of the procedural nuances of how the lawsuit is initiated. None of the concerns you voiced will become worse due to this ruling.