Markman hearing

Last updated

A Markmanhearing is a judicial proceeding held in the United States District Court for claims dealing with patent infringement. During a Markman hearing a judge is responsible for interpreting the meaning of words and phrases in a patent, ultimately providing what is known as "claim construction." [1] This is also known as claim interpretation. [2] A Markman hearing usually defines the scope of the patent either for or against the inventor. However, effects of the Markman hearing, include (1) what evidence to consider, (2) de novo review on appeal, (3) depletion of judicial resources, and (4) the timing of a Markman hearing. [3]

Contents

Inception

In the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , [4] the Supreme Court of the United States held that claim interpretation was a matter of law rather than a question of fact for the jury. [5] Ordinarily, the 7th Amendment provides, in certain circumstances, an individual's right to a jury trial. [6] However, courts have determined that in some instances its better equipped to address certain issues, like patent claim interpretation, as opposed to juries. [5] Specifically, the court in Markman determined that patents are like contracts, and contracts have been reviewed by the court in history's past. [3] Therefore, it is best suited for courts to interpret patent language. [4]

Effects and Clarifications

Intrinsic v. Extrinsic Evidence

One of the main areas which needed clarification after the creation of Markman hearings was the use of evidence during claim construction. In analyzing patent language, the court can turn to difference sources of information for guidance. [7] These sources were eventually split into intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence. [7]

Intrinsic evidence includes (1) the patent itself, (2) the patent specification, and (3) patent history. [7] The words themselves, is the most important source of evidence and defines the scope of the patent. [8] The court must analyze the words in their ordinary meaning and "in light of the specifics . . . [of] the invention." [9] Put differently, the court must look at the language's plain meaning to determine the intended scope of protection of the patent at issue.

Next, the court may consider patent specification during claim construction. According to 35 U.S.C. § 112, a specification contains "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention." [10] The specification, known as the dictionary of a patent, must be looked at with the patent to determine whether the patentee used terms which are inconsistent with ordinary patent language. [7]

Lastly, the court may consider patent history in its claim construction. Patent history provides information regarding all proceedings prior to patent approval, including applicant representations to the Patent and Trademark Office. [7] Patent history may provide the court with a more in-depth understanding as to the intended scope of the claim. [7]

Extrinsic evidence can include sources, such as expert testimony. [7] However, there has been debate in the Federal Circuit as to whether extrinsic evidence can be used alongside intrinsic when evaluating claims. [1] According to the court in Vitronics Corp., extrinsic evidence shall not be used when intrinsic evidence is sufficient to resolve ambiguous claims. [11] Yet, three years later, the same court in Pitney Bowes, Inc., determined that judges can turn to extrinsic evidence for guidance even in circumstances where the intrinsic evidence is adequate on its own. [12]

In 2015, the Supreme Court clarified that in claim construction, only intrinsic evidence should be used, and if after such review the claim terms are still ambiguous, then extrinsic evidence can be used. [13]

De Novo Appellate Review

Another effect of Markman hearings is the de novo review of claim interpretation. [14] After the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , the Federal Circuit was faced with determining the proper standard of review of claim construction issues on appeal. [15] In Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed that the standard of review would be de novo . [16] De novo is defined as an appellate court reviewing a lower court's decision with without regard to the lower court's decision. [17] In a case concerning claim interpretation, the higher court will not consider the lower court's decision in interpreting a claim.

This of review led to studies regarding the reversal rates of trial court decisions. [18] Prior to Markman, studies showed that reversal rates for patent claim construction was approximately 20.8%. [18] After the court's decision in Cybor, the reversal rates increased to 32%. [18] The reason for such high reversal rates was the standard of review, which ultimately resulted in a lack of uniformity and consistency in decisions. [18]

In 2015, the Supreme Court addressed the de novo review standard. [15] In Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. , the Supreme Court reversed their decision in Cybor and held that the appellate court must defer to factual findings of the lower court unless the findings were "clearly erroneous." [19] Specifically, the Court stated the following standard was to be used by lower court's: only intrinsic evidence should be used, and if after such review the claim terms are still ambiguous, then extrinsic evidence can be used. If there is a dispute over the underlying facts, the court may make "[secondary] factual findings as to the credibility of the extrinsic evidence." [15] Appellate court's will review the fact finding for "clear error" on appeal. [15]

Markman Hearing Timing

When Markman hearings occur is up to the trial court. [3] The Federal Circuit has not provided clear guidance to the lower courts as to when a hearing should occur, but rather has implied preferences as to when it should take place. Times at which a Markman hearing may take place includes during pre-discovery, at summary judgment, and at trial, but before jury instructions. [3]

Conducting a Markman hearing during the pre-discovery phase includes benefits, such as limiting litigation time, early settlements, decreasing litigation costs, and centralizing discovery around the court's interpretation of the patent claim. [3] Disadvantages include short discovery phases and court's interpreting claim language with little information. Ultimately, early on claim construction by the court can be later changed as more information becomes available, which makes early on Markman hearings impractical. [3]

Most courts conduct Markman hearings at summary judgment prior to trial. Conducting a Markman hearing at this stage of litigation includes benefits, such as identifying which claims are important to the claim at issue and allowing the court to use discovery to interpret the claim. [3] However, an issue with conducting a hearing at this phase of litigation was the likelihood of reversal on appeal. [3] Prior to 2015, should a court dismiss a case at summary judgment, the claim construction was subject to de novo review. [3] After 2015, appeals are subject to the hybrid "clear error" standard. [18] However, studies are still to premature to determine whether reversal rates will remain as high as they have under a de novo review standard. [18]

The latest a Markman hearing can occur is at or after a trial, prior to jury instruction. [3] Advantages include, no claim interpretation without important background information, judges have a better understanding of the technology at issue, and judge heard all important evidence. [3] Disadvantages include delay in jury decisions, juries hearing evidence without the construction of the court, and arguments as to different claim interpretations, which may include unnecessary litigation. [3]

Impact

A major consequence of Markman hearings is the split of patent claims into a Markman hearing itself and a trial. [1] First, a separate hearing has allowed for experts to be produced on two occasions. [1] Second, courts that interpret claims early on in the pre-discovery phase are looking at patent language without the content needed to properly assess the claim. [1] These factors not only increase litigation costs, require additional judicial time, and potentially lengthen litigation, but also increase the likelihood of reversal on appeal should the court conduct claim construction without proper knowledge.

Related Research Articles

In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal. A trial de novo is usually ordered by an appellate court when the original trial failed to decide in a manner dictated by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent infringement</span> Breach of the rights conferred by a patent

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

An interlocutory appeal occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. The rules governing how and when interlocutory appeals may be taken vary by jurisdiction.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge, and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.

In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation.

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides a private cause of action to victims of employment discrimination. The Court ruled that Title VII's "employee-numerosity requirement," which limits potential defendants to those maintaining at least fifteen employees, is not a limit on a court's jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims. The requirement is instead a substantive element of a Title VII claim, which means that a defendant must raise the issue prior to verdict or the requirement will be waived.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Circuit split</span> Legal predicament

In United States federal courts, a circuit split, also known as a split of authority or split in authority, occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantial similarity</span> Standard in US copyright law

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the issue of patent infringement on a "safe hands" device that Michael Powell, an independent contractor for Home Depot, created in response to injuries to the hands of associates using in-store radial arm saws. Powell invented and patented a device that eliminated the risk of injury. The Home Depot refused to pay Powell for the device and began installing the safety device on its saws without permission. In 2007, Powell sued The Home Depot for patent infringement. After a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Powell was awarded damages totaling $20.8 million.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, was a case decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit en banc, that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015), is a patent case of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Copaxone patent. The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error," not a de novo, standard of review.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

United States v. Throckmorton is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Niro, Raymond; Hosteny, Joseph (2002). "Markman: An Infringer's Delight; an Inventor's Nightmare". Sedona Conference Journal. 3 (69): 70 – via West Law.
  2. ↑ Manzo, Edward (2011). "How to Improve Patent Claim Interpretations". Federal Circuit Bar Journal. 22 (203): 203 – via West Law.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Salmon, Timothy (2004). "Procedural Uncertainty in Markman Hearings: When Will the Federal Circuit Show the Way". St. John's of Legal Commentart. 18 (1031): 1033 – via West Law.
  4. 1 2 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
  5. 1 2 Lee, William; Krug, Anita (1999). "Still Adjusting to Markman: A prescription for the Timing of Claim Construction Hearings". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 13 (55): 56 – via West Law.
  6. ↑ Seventh Amendment, Goldcopy § 16.6.1.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
  8. ↑ Bell Comms. Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Comms. Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619–20 (1995).
  9. ↑ United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966).
  10. ↑ 35 U.S.C. § 112.
  11. ↑ Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
  12. ↑ Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
  13. ↑ Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz. Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).
  14. ↑ 69 C.J.S. § 417.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Booth, Rainey (2017). "The Only Certainty is Uncertainty: Patent Claim Construction in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit". Journal of Technology Law & Policy. 21 (243): 247–51 – via West Law.
  16. ↑ Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
  17. ↑ Oldfather, Chad (2008). "Universal De Novo Review". George Washington Law Review. 77 (308): 308 – via Hein Online.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Booth, Rainey (2017). "The Only Certainty is Uncertainty: Patent Claim Construction in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit". Journal of Technology Law & Policy. 21 (243): 252–54 – via West Law.
  19. ↑ Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 836 (2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6).


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.