Exercising Restraint: Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Action Under Abstention Doctrine
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on the "abstention doctrine," despite the declaratory judgment plaintiff's insistence that the underlying contract dispute required resolution of patent validity and claim scope that were within the federal courts' exclusive purview.
January 26, 2021 at 10:18 AM
11 minute read
This article appeared in The Intellectual Property Strategist, an ALM/Law Journal Newsletters publication that provides a practical source of both business and litigation tactics in the fast-changing area of intellectual property law, including litigating IP rights, patent damages, venue and infringement issues, inter partes review, trademarks on social media – and more.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on the "abstention doctrine," despite the declaratory judgment plaintiff's insistence that the underlying contract dispute required resolution of patent validity and claim scope that were within the federal courts' exclusive purview. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., et al. v. Sasso, 977 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The decision in Warsaw Orthopedic provides guidance to litigants with claims involving both state and federal issues and attempts to resolve competing Supreme Court standards governing application of the abstention doctrine.
|Background
Rick A. Sasso is the inventor of a facet screw instrumentation and a headless facet screw fixation system that is used in spinal surgery (the Invention). Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) develop and market medical devices, including implant screws used in connection with spinal surgery. The parties entered into a purchase agreement in December 1999, whereby Dr. Sasso agreed to transfer all rights to his invention (including the right to patent the invention), and Medtronic agreed to make quarterly royalty payments based on Medtronic's sales of certain medical devices (broadly defined as "any device, article, system, apparatus or product including the [i]nvention" and listed in an attachment). Those payments would run until the last patent expired or, if no patents issued with "valid claim coverage" of the covered medical devices, then seven years after the first sale. Two patents ultimately issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,287,313 and 6,562,046 (respectively, the "'313 patent" and "'046 patent"). Medtronic made royalty payments from 2002 to 2018.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250