Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2150360
 
 

Footnotes (351)



 


 



Informal Deference: A Historical, Empirical, and Normative Analysis of Patent Claim Construction


Jonas Anderson


American University - Washington College of Law

Peter S. Menell


University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

September 3, 2013

108 Northwestern University Law Review 1 (2014)

Abstract:     
Patent scope plays a central role in the operation of the patent system, making patent claim construction a critical aspect of just about every patent litigation. With the resurgence of patent jury trials in the 1980s, the allocation of responsibility for interpreting patent claims between trial judge and jury emerged as a salient issue. While the Supreme Court’s Markman decision usefully removed claim construction from the black box of jury deliberations notwithstanding its "mongrel" mixed fact/law character, the Federal Circuit's adherence to the view that claim construction is a pure question of law subject to de novo appellate review produced an unusually high reversal rate, distorting the evidentiary foundation of claim construction determinations, delaying settlement of patent cases, running up litigation costs, and turning appellate review of nearly every patent case into re-litigation of patent claim terms.

In 2004, the Federal Circuit undertook to reassess this regime in the Phillips case. The majority en banc opinion largely stayed the course. Indeed, the empirical studies to have emerged since Phillips suggest that not much has changed, finding that the reversal rate remained high and that the Federal Circuit's analytical framework remained largely unchanged. This article presents the results of a comprehensive empirical analysis of the Federal Circuit's claim construction jurisprudence from 2000 through 2011. In contrast to prior analyses, we find that the claim construction reversal rate has dropped precipitously since the Phillips decision from 37.6% to 23.8% on a per claim term basis. Reversal rates have fallen for all members of the Federal Circuit and across all technology fields except business methods. During 2011, the average reversal rate dipped to 17%.

This does not mean, however, that the problems of de novo review have been adequately resolved. So long as the Federal Circuit clings to the view that claim construction is a question of law subject to de novo review, district courts will downplay their resort to experts and fact-finding in managing claim construction. This will undermine the quality of adjudication and appellate review by failing to elicit relevant evidence and perpetuating opaque analysis and reasoning. We propose a "mongrel" standard of appellate review of claim construction decisions that better reflects the comparative strengths of trial judges in determining how skilled artisans understand patent claim terms. Formal recognition of this more deferential standard promises to improve the quality of claim construction at the trial court level while improving transparency and encouraging earlier settlement of patent disputes.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 84

Keywords: Patent, Claim Construction, Appellate Review, Patent Scope

JEL Classification: K19, O33, O34

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 22, 2012 ; Last revised: March 16, 2014

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Jonas and Menell, Peter S., Informal Deference: A Historical, Empirical, and Normative Analysis of Patent Claim Construction (September 3, 2013). 108 Northwestern University Law Review 1 (2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2150360 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2150360

Contact Information

Jonas Anderson
American University - Washington College of Law ( email )
4801 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20016
United States
Peter S. Menell (Contact Author)
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law ( email )
215 Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,083
Downloads: 626
Download Rank: 22,254
Footnotes:  351
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.360 seconds