Restoring the Fact/Law Distinction in Patent Claim Construction

14 Pages Posted: 26 Feb 2015 Last revised: 28 Mar 2017

See all articles by Jonas Anderson

Jonas Anderson

American University - Washington College of Law

Peter S. Menell

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

Date Written: March 9, 2015

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz brings the standard of review of patent construction rulings into line with foundational juridical principles of appellate review, resolving one of the most divisive issues in patent litigation over the past two decades. This article shows that the decision's efficacy depends critically upon how district courts adapt their case management. District judges will need to implement effective procedures for ferreting out subsidiary factual disputes bearing on claim construction, scour the intrinsic evidence for contraindications, develop a sufficient evidentiary record for resolving the dispute, and explain their analysis. The article also explores the interplay of claim construction and claim indefiniteness.

Keywords: Patent Claim Construction, Markman, Judicial Review, Indefiniteness, Patent Case Management

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Jonas and Menell, Peter S., Restoring the Fact/Law Distinction in Patent Claim Construction (March 9, 2015). 109 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 187 (2015); UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2569204; American University, WCL Research Paper No. 2015-17. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2569204 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2569204

Jonas Anderson

American University - Washington College of Law ( email )

4300 Nebraska Avenue, NW
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

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
117
rank
233,176
Abstract Views
1,007
PlumX Metrics