July 1, 2022

Volume XII, Number 182

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Will Take Up Standard of Review of Factual Findings in Claim Construction

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.

In a case that will likely determine the standard of review used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over lower court claim constructions, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Teva Pharmaceuticals’ appeal of a decision by the Federal Circuit invalidating several patents covering its multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al., Case No 13-854 (Supr. Ct., Mar. 31, 2014).

The question presented to the high court is whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, according to current Federal Circuit practice, or only for clear error.

In its cert petition Teva argued that the Federal Circuit’s decision to invalidate its patents was the result of its long-standing practice of not giving deference to district court claim construction rulings.

Teva argued that even though “[t]he district court took evidence from all sides and devoted considerable time to understanding the science and the invention. The court of appeals undid that effort based purely on its own oversimplified reading of the record de novo.”

While Teva’s cert petition was pending, the Federal Circuit, in a 6-4 en banc ruling on Feb. 21 in the Lighting Ballast Control case, invoked the doctrine of stare decisis and ruled that it would continue to review district court claim constructions based on the 15-year-old Cybor v. FAS Technologies de novo standard of review.

Less than two weeks after the Federal Circuit ruling in Lighting Ballast, Teva urged the Supreme Court to take its case to correct what it argued was an incorrect en banc decision in Lighting Ballast.

© 2022 McDermott Will & EmeryNational Law Review, Volume IV, Number 125
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Paul Devinsky, Intellectual Property Attorney
Partner

Paul Devinsky is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on patent, trademark and copyright litigation and counseling, as well as on trade secret litigation and counseling, and on licensing and transactional matters and post-issuance PTO proceedings such as reissues, reexaminations and interferences.

202-756-8369
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement