Federal Circuit - Apple v. Samsung - Apple Wins Appeal Reinstating $199.6M Samsung Verdict

Today in Apple v. Samsung Electronics the Federal Circuit reinstated a $199.6M jury verdict for Samsung's infringement of Apple's US Patent Nos. 5,946,647, 8,046,721, and 8,074,172  because the verdict was supported by substantial evidence in the record and the trial court didn't err in denying Samsung's judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

The Federal Circuit stated it must limit its appellant function to the trial court's record:

"We granted Apple's en banc petition to affirm our understanding of the appellate function as limited to deciding the issues raised on appeal by the parties, deciding these issues only on the basis of the record made below, and as requiring appropriate deference be applied to the review of fact findings. There was no need to solicit additional briefing or argument on the question of whether an appellate panel can look to extra-record extrinsic evidence to construe a patent claim term. “The Supreme Court made clear that the factual components [of claim construction] include ‘the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.’” Teva Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teva Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015)). After Teva, such fact findings are indisputably the province of the district court. ... We likewise did not need additional briefing or argument to determine that the appellate court is not permitted to reverse fact findings that were not appealed or that the appellate court is required to review jury fact findings when they are appealed for substantial evidence. The panel reversed nearly a dozen jury fact findings including infringement, motivation to combine, the teachings of prior art references, commercial success, industry praise, copying, and long-felt need across three different patents. It did so despite the fact that some of these findings were not appealed and without ever mentioning the applicable substantial evidence standard of review. And with regard to objective indicia, it did so in ways that departed from existing law.

The dissents, and Judge Dyk’s dissent in particular, raise big questions about how aspects of the obviousness doctrine ought to operate. But no party—at the panel or the petition for rehearing en banc stage—invited this court to consider changing the existing law of obviousness. We did not take this case en banc to decide important legal questions about the inner workings of the law of obviousness."

See Gene Quinn's IP Watchdog article Federal Circuit recognizes its role as only an appellate court in Apple v. Samsung and Susan Decker's Bloomberg article Apple Wins Appeal Reinstating $199.6M Samsung Verdict.

Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

US Supreme Court - Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz - Claim Construction

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held the Federal Circuit cannot reverse a district court's fact findings underpinning claim construction unless they are clearly wrong.

As background, patent claims define a patent owner's right to exclude others. When parties dispute whether a claim is valid or infringed, a judge will interpret the words and phrases of the claim (i.e., claim construction) in a Markman hearing. Claim construction is a big event, because many patent cases settle after the Markman hearing.

In Markman v. Westview Instruments, the Supreme Court held that a "judge, from his training and discipline, is more likely to give a proper interpretation to such instruments than a jury." But claim construction is not purely a legal question. Claim construction has facts underpinning the meaning of the claim that are determined by jury such as determining the credibility of experts testifying at trial, on e.g., what's molecular weight? Markman walked around this problem stating such facts are "subsumed within the necessarily sophisticated analysis of the whole document." Afterward the Federal Circuit understood claim construction should be reviewed as a question of law without deference to the trial court's fact findings. But this led to uncertainty on the meaning of the patent claim until the Federal Circuit gave its opinion, which too often reversed the trial court.

It is an important decision, but I am not entirely sure it's not mostly for lawyers, since it may just produce: (1) greater certainty that a trial court's claim interpretation will "stick," (2) less work for those lawyers in Federal Circuit practice, and (3) a greater role for expert witnesses. Although academics and lawyers are talking up a storm about this case right now, Teva should not be surprising since it is consistent with the Supreme Court's string of decisions that again try to rein in the considerable clout of the Federal Circuit, which has developed a substantial body of patent law.

Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.

US Supreme Court - Teva v. Sandoz - Standard of Review for Claim Construction

Some believe the next major patent case to be decided by the US Supreme Court is Teva v. Sandoz, which will address the standard of review for claim construction. Although the case deals with other issues such as claim indefiniteness, how the US Supreme Court handles the Federal Circuit's practice of de novo review of claims may be quite important, because US patent cases often turn on claim construction, which is considered to be a legal question despite the fact findings.

For details on Teva v. Sandoz see Mr. Lyle Denniston's SCOTUSblog article: Argument preview: Trimming a specialized court's power?

Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.