Korean Civil Rule of the burden of proof comparing Medtronic v. Mirowski

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. MIROWSKI FAMILY VENTURES, LLC 1.     When a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of infringement. 2.     The Federal Circuit did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. Title 28 U. S. C. §1338(a) gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” and §1295(a)(1) gives the Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction over any case where jurisdiction in the district court “was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338.”

In Korean traditional civil proceedings, it has long been established that a party who asserts an existence of right must have the burden of proof.

 

Therefore, In Korea, It is natural that defendant should bear a burden of proving infringement in the plaintiff’s DJ action to confirm non-existence of right enforcing a patent unlike any other ordinary civil actions.

 

This rule of burden applied in the case of the Supreme Court of the U.S. regarding Medtronic v. Mirowski seems to be very similar to that of Korean traditional case.
 

 

I think that if Medtronic, the licensee, believe that it does not owe royalties because its products are non-infringing and were to act on such belief, Mirowski, the licensor, could terminate the license and bring an ordinary federal patent law action for infringement of Medtronic.


Copyright © CHINSU LEE, but may partially include other’s copyright, This article is for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice.