July 2, 2020

Volume X, Number 184

July 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Holds That Factual Findings for Patent Claim Interpretation are Reviewed for Clear Error

Ultimate Claim Interpretation is Still Reviewed De Novo

In Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., No. 13-854 (Jan. 20, 2015), the Supreme Court held that in patent cases the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error” standard when reviewing a district court’s factual findings within a claim interpretation (“claim construction”). This reverses the practice of the Federal Circuit using only de novo review when considering claim construction decisions.

Even so, the Teva decision maintains that the Federal Circuit must still review a district court’s ultimate construction of a claim de novo. Thus, the Teva holding only changes the legal standard of review for factual findings (i.e., extrinsic evidence) relied upon by a district court in construing claims.  To the extent a district court bases its construction solely on intrinsic evidence (i.e., the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history), the Federal Circuit must continue to apply the de novo standard. 

While Teva formally modifies the standard of review for claim construction, in practice the Federal Circuit has on many occasions already given deference to lower court fact-findings when determining claim construction issues on appeal, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Thus, the Teva decision merely makes providing such deference as to factual findings a formal requirement of the Federal Circuit. 

Teva will likely not have a significant practical effect on claim construction review, and it should be a rare occasion when this decision changes the outcome of any case. However, litigating parties may weigh more carefully the decision to introduce extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, during the claim construction process, since doing so may make it more difficult to challenge a district court’s claim construction. 

© 2020 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.National Law Review, Volume V, Number 23


About this Author

Thomas C. McDonough, Patent, Attorney, Neal Gerber Law firm

As a registered patent attorney, Thomas C. McDonough represents and counsels individuals and corporations on intellectual property issues, including patent filings, patent, trademark and copyright infringement matters, and foreign and domestic trademark protection. Tom also has significant experience in licensing matters, including drafting and negotiating software licenses, patent and trademark licenses and transfers and confidentiality agreements. He has been heavily involved in all aspects of intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, trade dress and copyright...

James P. Muraff, Intellectual Property & Technology Transactions attorney, Neal Gerber law firm

James P. Muraff’s practice involves all aspects of intellectual property, such as domestic and foreign patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and unfair competition, including counseling, investigations, transactions, prosecution and litigation, with a primary focus in the computer hardware and software, electronics, and Internet technologies.

Jim is regularly involved with software and Internet clients for transactional, licensing, clearance, and general intellectual property law counseling. Jim’s practice also includes significant litigation experience involving various technologies in patent, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trade secret cases within federal courts, a representative list of which is set forth below. He has been involved with all of the related aspects of these cases, such as discovery and discovery motions, as well as numerous motions for summary judgment, motions to dismiss, and trial preparation. Several of these cases have included foreign parties and international issues.