In any action on patent infringement, a focal issue is that of whether the interpretation of claims entails questions of fact or law that have to be answered for adjudication of the suit.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)[1] is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States that radically reshaped the patent litigation process. The case deals with the jurisprudence of claim construction— that is, the process of determining the meaning and scope of a patent's claims.
The dispute in the suit arose from a patent granted to Herbert Markman, which covered a system for inventory control of dry-cleaning establishments. The patented invention related to a method and apparatus for tracking clothing items using coded information attached to each garment.
Markman filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Westview Instruments and others alleging infringement of his patent.
A primary issue during the trial was the definition of several terms, such as ‘inventory’, used in patent claims. The district court held there was no infringement by interpreting the claims narrowly as a matter of law in favor of Westview.
Markman appealed, arguing that claim interpretation involved factual determinations that should have been decided by the jury. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court for the resolution of this procedural question that is fundamentally application to all patent litigation cases:
“Who is the competent authority to interpret patent claims—the judge or the jury?”
Therefore, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law for the court or a matter of fact for the jury, particularly in light of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases.
In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that patent claims’ construction is exclusively a question of law. Accordingly, judges—not juries—are empowered to determine the meaning and scope of patent claims. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court decision in favor of Westview Instruments.
The Court examined English and early American patent practices. It relied on historical analysis and functional considerations and found no clear past evidence of juries construing patent claims. Instead, it observed that traditionally judges played a predominant role in the interpretation of written instruments, including patents.
The Court further stressed upon the techno-legal nature of patent claim interpretation. Patent claims are part of a written document that confers proprietary rights on the patentee; it defines the legal sustainability of those rights, much like a statute or a contract. Interpreting these boundaries requires legal expertise and judicial consistency, which judges are better positioned to provide because of training in legal exegesis.
.jpg)
Further, the Court noted that allowing juries to construe claims could lead to inconsistent interpretations across cases and undermine uniformity in patent law. Judicial claim construction promotes predictability and stability in patent enforcement.
The Bench also observed:
“We accordingly think there is sufficient reason to treat construction of terms of art like responsibilities that we cede to a judge in the normal course of trial, notwithstanding its evidentiary underpinnings”.
Thus, the court ruled that while patent infringement actions are subject to a jury trial, the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a jury's right to interpret technical claim terms. By doing so, it enhanced consistency, predictability, and judicial control in patent infringement suits, making it one of the cornerstones of modern U.S. patent jurisprudence.
The ruling in the Markman case[2] radically reshaped U.S. patent litigation. It established the practice of “Markman Hearings”, which are pre-trial proceedings wherein judges interpret disputed claim terms and scope of patent claims, prior to infringement issues being presented to juries.
The decision also reinforced the idea that patent claims define the scope of exclusivity as a legal matter, not a factual one. Subsequent cases, such as Phillips v. AWH Corp. (2005)[3], further refined how courts should conduct claim construction, but Markman remains the cornerstone authority.
In general, Judges rely on three primary sources of evidence (intrinsic evidence) during these hearings, namely: (i) Patent Claims; (ii) Written Description of the invention; and, (iii) Prosecution History, that is, the record of correspondence with the USPTO. Once a judge interprets relevant terms, it is frequently obvious whether infringement occurred or not. Hence, these hearings are often case-dispositive, because they lead to settlements or summary judgments.
At BLAZE VENTURES, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals to strategically advise parties on Markman Hearings during patent infringement suits.
______
[1] 517 U.S. 370 (1996)
[2] supra
[3] 415 F.3d1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
