Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

New Standard of Review for Claim Construction – Deference Required

Publications

January 20, 2015

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rewrote almost 20 years of Federal Circuit precedent in its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al. Claim construction decisions involving factual findings are no longer reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit. Rather, evidentiary underpinnings of claim construction decisions should be reviewed for "clear error." The 7-2 decision abrogates Federal Circuit precedent that afforded no deference to district court claim construction decisions.

The case involves Teva's allegations that competitors infringe its patents covering manufacturing methods for Teva's popular multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone®. No. 13-854, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015). The basic dispute in the case concerns the meaning of the term "molecular weight" as it appears in an asserted patent claim. The District Court, after taking evidence from experts, concluded that the asserted patent was sufficiently definite, and consequently valid, because the term "molecular weight" would be understood to be calculated a certain way by a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application. Id. at 3. In May 2013, the Federal Circuit reviewed de novo all aspects of the District Court's claim construction and found that the term "molecular weight" was indefinite. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the appropriate appellate standard of review for claim construction. Id. at 1.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), appellate courts may not set aside a district court's findings of fact "unless clearly erroneous." Id. at 1, 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6)). Questions of law, on the other hand, are reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. at 1. Relying on Rule 52(a), the majority held that the Federal Circuit must review a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of claim construction for clear error, with deference given to the district court. The majority noted, however, that the Federal Circuit will continue to review de novo the district court's ultimate interpretation of patent claims. Id. at 9.

Given the inevitable ambiguity between findings of fact and conclusions of law in the claim construction context, the Supreme Court attempted to explain how the new rules of review should be applied. For patent cases in which a district court reviews only intrinsic evidence (limited to the patent claims, specifications, and prosecution history), the trial judge's claim constructions amount to determinations of law to be reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. at 11-12. For patent cases in which the trial judge needs to consult extrinsic evidence (including, for example, expert testimony), subsidiary factual findings about disputed extrinsic evidence are entitled to deference by the appellate court and reviewed for clear error. Id. at 12.

Due to the significance of claim construction on the outcome of patent cases, patent litigants can expect the next wave of (collateral) litigation to involve challenges to the standard of review applied by the Federal Circuit. In the wake of Teva, litigants embroiled in patent disputes will need to be prepared to litigate the line between the ultimate interpretation of the patent claims and the subsidiary factual findings of a district court. Early predictions are that the Teva decision is likely to result in less uniformity of claim construction and increased importance of expert testimony during claim construction.

Throughout the 2015 term, our firm's Intellectual Property and Technology team will continue to monitor decisions impacting the IP industry.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.