Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Issues
Should the Federal Circuit review the construction of patent claims de novo or for clear error?
The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claims construction in a patent infringement case de novo and reversed that court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact whether the interpretation of patent claim construction involves questions of law. Sandoz and amici argue that claim construction involves questions of law, and to review interpretations deferentially would cause interpretive contradictions between district courts. However, Teva and amici argue that de novo review would undermine the district courts and lead to over-litigation of issues.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, and other related companies (collectively, “Teva”), developed and obtained a patent for Copaxone, a drug used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al., v. Sandoz Inc., 876 F. Supp.
Written by
Edited by
The authors would like to thank Professor Oskar Liivak for his insights into this case.
Additional Resources
- Gabriella Khorasanee: Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Teva v. Sandoz Patent Case, FindLaw (Apr. 2, 2014).
- Andrew Williams: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz, Patent Docs (Mar. 31, 2014).