• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Appeal / S.Ct. raises standard to reverse court’s claim construction

S.Ct. raises standard to reverse court’s claim construction

February 10, 2015 by James Yang

ClaimConstructionStandardBottom line: The importance of winning at the district court level for patent litigation has significantly increased due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, specifically, Teva Pharamceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (S.Ct. 2015). Since 1995, when a decision at the district court hinged on claim construction (i.e., defining the terms of a patent claim), the appellate court (i.e., Federal Circuit) generally reviewed the issue without any deference for the findings of facts at the district court level. As a result, a significant number of the cases that went up on appeal based on claim construction issues were overturned. Estimated reversal rates vary from 35% to over 50% over the years. The Teva opinion now requires the appellate court to give findings of facts of the district court deference and can only overturn those findings based on a clear error standard, a very high standard indeed. The holding of Teva is expected to significantly decrease this reversal rate since claim construction oftentimes involves findings of facts.

In Teva, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) set the standard of review that should be applied by the appellate court (i.e., Federal Circuit) when a district court construes a particular claim term. In a patent, the scope of protection is defined by the claims, not the extent of what is disclosed in the patent’s specification. Since words can have different meanings, the liability of an alleged infringer for patent infringement is frequently determined by how the claim terms are defined. Litigants spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on convincing a judge to adopt their meaning of a term, especially if the meaning is determinative of liability.

The case of Teva is no different. The parties litigated the definition of “molecular weight.” The patent specification was silent on how molecular weight is calculated, but industry calculated molecular weight in three different ways. The patent owner (Teva) argued that the first of the three possible definitions was the correct definition and should be adopted by the court. To bolster its position, Teva presented expert testimony because of the factual nature of the issue. The alleged infringer (Sandoz) argued that since the patent specification did not specify the method of calculating the molecular weight, the claim was indefinite, and thus invalid. The district court ultimately adopted the patent owner’s definition and found the claim was valid and infringed.

Sandoz appealed and the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the claim was indefinite and thus invalid and not infringed. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed matters of claim construction de novo. No deference was given to the district court’s findings of fact based on the expert’s testimony. The Federal Circuit rejected the testimony of Teva’s expert. The Federal Circuit independently reviewed the record and reversed the district court’s decision finding the claim was invalid, and not infringed.

Back in 2010, the reversal rate on appeal when claim construction was at issue was about 35%. (See Figure 2 on this blog post for reversal rates). Other estimates pegged the number above 50%. In other words, after a party spends millions of dollars on a case and loses, the losing party’s could still win by filing an appeal. If the appeal is based on claim construction issues, a panel of three (3) judges at the Federal Circuit reviews the case with fresh eyes without any deference for what occurred at the district court. The Federal Circuit overturns the district court’s holdings about 35%. Fairly good odds given that appellate work may be significantly less costly than district court litigation.

Part of the reversal rate is a function of the standard of review that should be applied at the Federal Circuit level. If the standard of review is high so that the Federal Circuit must give deference to the district court’s findings of facts, then the reversal rate would drop since it would be more difficult to set aside the decision of the district court. If the standard of review allows the Federal Circuit to make their own determinations de novo without any deference, then the reversal rate would stay about the same.

The SCOTUS held that the standard of review at the Federal Circuit for claim construction is no longer a straight forward de novo review. Rather, the SCOTUS explained that claim construction involves a mixed question of law and facts. The Federal Circuit will continue to review de novo the district court’s ultimate interpretation of the patent claims and those issues relating only to the intrinsic record contained within the four corners of the patent and its prosecution history. However, if claim construction requires looking beyond the intrinsic record or beyond the four corners of the patent and its file history, then these factual findings must be reviewed for clear error on appeal. Expert testimony is part of the extrinsic record.

The SCOTUS admits that factual findings at the district court may play a small role or be dispositive of the ultimate question of claim construction. However, the SCOTUS reiterates that even if factual findings play a dispositive role, the ultimate question of construction still remains a legal question, reviewed de novo and the factual issues are not transformed into a legal question.

In applying the new standard to the facts of Teva, the Federal Circuit did not accept Teva’s expert’s explanation as to how one skilled in the art would calculate “molecular weight.” The SCOTUS vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration.

Although to the lay person, this issue of standard of review may appear mundane, for the patent attorney, this is one of the most significant cases relating to patent law. It significantly increases the importance of obtaining one’s preferred claim construction which is usually decided early on during the district court litigation.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney