Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases
David L. Schwartz
Illinois Institute of Technology - Chicago-Kent College of Law
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 107, p. 223, 2008
3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers
Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property, Science & Technology Research Paper No. 09-016
This article examines the question of whether United States district court judges improve their skills at patent claim construction as a function of experience, including as a function of having their own cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In theory, higher courts teach doctrine to lower courts via judicial decisions, and lower courts learn from these decisions. This article tests the teaching-and-learning premise on the issue of claim construction in the realities of patent litigation. While others have shown that the Federal Circuit reverses a large percentage of lower court claim constructions, no one has analyzed whether judges with more claim construction appeal experience fare better on subsequent appeals.
Surprisingly, the data do not reveal any evidence that district court judges learn from prior appeals of their rulings. There is no suggestion of a significant relationship between experience and performance. The lack of evidence that Federal Circuit review aids district court judges is disconcerting. The article explores three possible explanations for the lack of evidence: (1) the indeterminate nature of claim construction; (2) that district court judges are incapable of or not interested in learning how to perform claim construction; and (3) that the Federal Circuit decisions do a poor job of teaching district court judges how to construe claims. These results shed critical light on the functioning of the patent system. Moreover, the results are relevant to a broader understanding of the relationship between higher and lower courts in general.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 64
Keywords: patent, claim construction, empirical, judge, reversal, judicialAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 16, 2008 ; Last revised: September 28, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.438 seconds