![]() If factual findings do not go a litigant's way, it will face the higher, clear-error burden on appeal to have those findings overturned. At the same time, litigants-especially patentees-should exercise caution in overstating the need for fact finding. Thus, for cases in which extrinsic evidence is (or is deemed by the Federal Circuit to be) relevant to claim construction, Teva could reduce the relatively high reversal rate at the court of appeals for claim construction determinations. Teva could increase and alter evidentiary presentations on claim construction-because of the more deferential standard of review, a district court's fact finding in matters of claim construction will now be harder to disturb on appeal, so parties and even courts may be incentivized to increase reliance on extrinsic evidence. ![]() Teva has the potential to reshape patent litigation, although whether it actually will do so remains to be seen. In the context of patent claim construction, therefore, the Court held that a district court's analysis of the intrinsic evidence and its ultimate determination as to the proper meaning of the claim are reviewed de novo, while its fact findings regarding extrinsic evidence are reviewed for clear error. Sandoz, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held, contrary to the Federal Circuit's longstanding practice, that a district court's claim constructions are to be reviewed on appeal under the two-part test set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52: Factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and legal rulings de novo. ![]() In its January 2015 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |