Case: Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2011-1313, -1372 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2014) (non-precedential). On appeal from D. Del. Before Lourie, Linn, and Prost.

Procedural Posture: Supreme Court reversed with respect to burden of persuasion and remanded. CAFC affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

  • Burden of Persuasion: The Supreme Court held that the district court was correct in its determination that the defendants, as patentees, carried the burden to prove infringement in a declaratory judgment action in which the defendant-patentee was precluded from pursuing infringement counterclaims by the continued existence of a license to the plaintiff.
  • Literal Infringement: The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant’s expert report lacked foundation to deem him reliable where the expert report did not map the plaintiffs’ products to every limitation of the relevant claims. Having determined the expert opinion lacked foundation, the district court correctly found that defendant failed to prove literal infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Doctrine of Equivalents: The district court correctly found defendant’s expert opinion to be unreliable. An opinion based merely on conclusory statements such as “’[the] difference would not be substantial at all. The purpose is the same…,’ or words of a very similar nature,” is insufficient to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents by a preponderance of the evidence.