Teva Pharm. United States, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996), we explained that a patent claim is that "portion of the patent document that defines the scope of the patentee's rights." Id.,at 372, 116 S.Ct. 1384. We held that "the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim," is not for a jury but "exclusively" for "the court" to determine. Ibid. That is so even where the construction of a term of art has "evidentiary underpinnings." Id., at 390, 116 S.Ct. 1384.
Today's case involves claim construction with "evidentiary underpinnings." See…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by549 opinions
- Richard Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
544 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.