Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. (20-440)

argument 20-440

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 28m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of the Minerva Surgical v. Hologic case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument next in case twenty four hundred forty Minerva Surgical Incorporated versus Hologic Incorporated. Mr Hawkman.

Unknown 0:11

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Patent Act doesn't provide for a sign or a stoppel and never has. In fact, it says invalidity shall be a defense in any action. That's essential to the fundamental patent bargain. The public grants exclusive rights, but only to the extent inventors publicly share useful advances in knowledge. Accused infringers who prove a patent is invalid vindicate the right of all to make and use and sell on patented project products. A logic says Congress didn't have to write a Cynorostopol into the Patent Act. It reads this court's nineteen twenty four decision in Formica as having settled the Sinorostoppel into patent law. We don't think that's what Formica did, but it doesn't matter, because the world didn't stop in nineteen twenty four.

Unknown 0:52

In nineteen forty five, this court allowed an assigner to invalidate a patent and scott paper. That's squarely contrary to assigner's stopping. In nineteen forty seven in Katzinger, this court confirmed that Scott Paper meant an asider was free to challenge the validity of the patent, and Lear, looking back on the state of the law before nineteen fifty two, said that this court had by then undermined the very basis of any general rule of patent estoppel. The logic of this court's decisions require abandoning a sign or estoppel. Exposing bad patents is vital patent law policy and allowing assigners to do so carries no meaningful costs. No reliance interests stand in the way of eliminating this anomalous doctrine, and a patent law specific limitation on the rights of assigners is nothing like claim for occlusion or issue preclusion or even equitable estoppel, which are generally applicable rules woven into our basic notions of fair and efficient litigation.

Unknown 1:43

At the very least. An inventor should be allowed to show that the assignee is asserting a claim broader than what the inventor adequately described and enabled. Not even a stoppel by deed, a sign or estoppel's supposed model, supports preventing challenges that appear on the face of the patent. And when is here the assignee, not the assignor, prosecuted the relevant claim nine years after the patent rights were sold, and did so to prevent competition from the assigner's new improved device, a sign or a stoppel is protected. particularly at odds with patent law policy. This court should order the Federal Circuit to consider Minerva's Section one hundred twelve invalidity argument. on the merits. Be happy to take any questions.

John G. Roberts 2:20

Uh thank you Mr. Hawkman. I want to focus a little bit on your your policy argument that getting rid of a signer estoppel uh would help uh you know get a rid rid of bad patents uh and encouraging inventors uh uh t to um to challenge uh a particular claims. Um but I thought strong patents uh was the way we encourage uh uh invention and that a signer estoppel uh helped ensure the strength and stability of of those patents. How do you sort out those competing policy uh arguments?

Unknown 3:04

Well I think the main policy point is that our our uh our uh patent system um absolutely believes in encouraging innovation, but it's the as I referred in my opening to the patent bargain. It's for there's there's a there's a bargain on the other side. The inventors have to provide, among other things, uh description and an an enablement of what they've done. They have to give that to the public in order to get the benefit. And our patent system depends on challenges to validity to make sure that we don't over protect. We don't provide the benefits of patent exclusivity without the parties doing all the things, without the inventors doing all the things necessary to earn that um ex ex substantial public benefit.

Unknown 3:49

That includes the time limited uh nature of the of the exclusivity in Scott Paper and it includes, among other things, um the written description enable uh enablement issues uh involved here. So it it's true that a sign of stople leads to um challenging bad patents, but that strengthens the overall policy of the patent system and corrects and helps correct for the over patenting that is uh s uh built into the system and has been discussed by uh scholars for a long time.