September 25, 2022

Volume XII, Number 268


September 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Holds Claim Construction Facts Are Subject to Clear Error Review

In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, (U.S., Jan. 20, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an “appellate court must apply a ‘clear error,’ not de novo, standard of review” to the evidentiary underpinnings of a district court’s claim construction determination.  While the ultimate question of claim construction will remain a legal question subject to de novo review, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must find clear error to overturn a district court’s resolution of an underlying factual dispute. 

The Court noted that the “clear command” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) provides that an appellate court may not set aside findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  The Court also found that nothing in Markman v. Westview Instru., Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), created an exception to Rule 52, in that the focus of Markman was principally a Seventh Amendment question as to whether claim construction was for a judge or jury. Markman held that the ultimate issue of claim construction should be treated as an issue of law, but also recognized that claim construction will have “evidentiary underpinnings” that courts may have to resolve as factual disputes. The Court was not persuaded that a clearly erroneous standard for factual disputes and de novo standard for the ultimate decision will be hard to manage or will interfere with uniform decision making.  The Court also found that there is a practical advantage for district courts to resolve factual disputes.  “A district court judge who has presided over, and listened to, the entirety of a proceeding has a comparatively greater opportunity to gain that familiarity than an appeals court judge who must read a written transcript or perhaps just those portions to which the parties have referred.”

In addressing how this rule of claim construction should be applied, the Court recognized that where the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent, the result is solely a determination of law, subject to de novo review.  The Court noted, however, that sometimes the district court needs to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and consult extrinsic evidence to understand the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.  The Court found that requires subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence, explaining that “[t]hese are the ’evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary fact finding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Even if such factual findings may be dispositive of the ultimate legal question on the proper meaning of the term, that does not render the subsidiary fact question a legal question.  Nevertheless, the Court was clear that “the ultimate question of construction will remain a legal question.”  Therefore, “[f]or example, if a district court resolves a dispute between experts and makes a factual finding that, in general, a certain term of art had a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the district court must then conduct a legal analysis: whether a skilled artisan would ascribe that same meaning to that term in the context of the specific patent claim under review.”

The Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case.       

© 2022 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP National Law Review, Volume V, Number 29

About this Author

William Berndt  Honigman Miller trade secrets false advertising trade secret law

 Mr. Berndt is a trial lawyer with substantial experience in state and federal courts across the country. He focuses his practice on trade secret and false advertising claims. He represents businesses and senior executives in disputes relating to noncompetition agreements, trademark and copyright, fraud, professional liability, internal investigations, and general business and commercial litigation. Mr. Berndt has first-chair experience in trials, arbitrations and other proceedings.

  • Litigates requests for emergency relief such as temporary...
David L. De Bruin appellate attorney patent litigation USPTO Honigman Chicago
Of Counsel

Mr. De Bruin is a seasoned first-chair trial and appellate attorney. He concentrates his practice on patent litigation and related proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. De Bruin successfully argues legal issues, as well as explain the most complex technology to judges and juries.

  • Tries patent cases in a variety of venues before judges and juries and has successfully argued numerous patent cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Represents clients in a wide array of technology ranging from mechanical and electrical devices...
Marcus D. Fruchter lawyer Honigman Chicago office litigation specialist

Mr. Fruchter defends or initiates litigation when it is inevitable and avoids lawsuits where possible. He provides zealous and creative representation that protects his clients’ legal rights and advances their strategic objectives. Mr. Fruchter litigates in state and federal courts across the country, and he has handled matters involving international and cross-border issues.

  • Resolves disputes for clients in a variety of areas, including intellectual property, commercial fraud, securities investigations, contract interpretation and enforcement, and professional malpractice...
Nicholas A. Gowen Honigman Chicago complex commercial litigation attorney t

Mr. Gowen represents companies, individuals and law firms in disputes, including those involving intellectual property, trade secrets, unfair competition, employment matters and other business litigation matters. He approaches litigation with an eye toward results; understanding that advancing his clients’ litigation strategies should fit within their overall business interests.

  • Counsels businesses on ways to avoid litigation and resolve disputes using alternative measures
  • Authors articles on various business litigation topics
Steven A Weiss Litigation attorney Honigman Law firm Chicago ediscovery
Leader, Complex Commercial Litigation Practice Group

Mr. Weiss provides advice on a wide variety of business litigation for companies and business people. He is focused on resolving business disputes with particular experience handling intellectual property, breach of contract, trade secret, employment and covenant not to compete matters. Local and national companies and individuals retain Mr. Weiss to handle a full range of business disputes because they trust his judgment and litigation skills.

  • Provides cost-effective representation that achieves results - either through settlement...