Supreme Court of the United States
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
January 20, 2015135 S. Ct. 831
Summary
The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) requires a court of appeals to review a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual disputes underlying patent claim construction for clear error, not de novo, while the ultimate construction of the claim remains a legal question reviewed de novo. Applying that rule, the Court concluded the Federal Circuit erred by rejecting, without any clear-error determination, the District Court's factual finding crediting Teva's expert's explanation of the peak shift in figure 1 of the Copaxone patent, and it vacated the judgment below and remanded. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, arguing that claim construction involves no 'findings of fact' within the meaning of Rule 52(a)(6) and that de novo review, including of indefiniteness, was proper.
Holding
- What standard of review applies when a court of appeals reviews a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual disputes made in the course of patent claim construction?. The appellate court must apply a 'clear error,' not a de novo, standard of review under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6).
- Did the holding that claim construction is exclusively for the court, rather than the jury, create an exception to Rule 52(a) for underlying factual disputes?. No. Treating the ultimate question of claim construction as a question of law for the judge did not create an exception to Rule 52(a) for underlying factual disputes.
- Whether the Federal Circuit erred in rejecting the District Court's finding crediting Teva's expert's explanation of the discrepancy between figure 1's curve peak and its 7.7 kilodalton legend value without finding that finding clearly erroneous.. Yes. The Federal Circuit should have accepted the District Court's finding unless it was 'clearly erroneous,' and in failing to do so it was wrong.
Docket No. 13–854.
Cited authorities
- 35 U.S.C. § 112
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)
- 99 Va. L. Rev. 1673
- 35 U.S.C. § 151
- 16 Stat. 202
- 5 Stat. 119
- 1 Stat. 109
Cited by
- Shire LLC and Shire US Inc. v. Abhai, LLC
- Sionyx, LLC and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.k. Hamamatsu Corporation Ocean…
- Purdue Pharma, L.p. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. Lead Case
- Palomar Technologies, Inc. v. Mrsi Systems, LLC
- Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC
- Nike, Inc v. Puma North America, Inc.
- Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Stilla Technologies, Inc.
- Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. EMC Corp.