Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistFeaturesKickerLJN NewslettersNewsSections

High Reversal Rate of Markman Decisions Weakens their Intended Value

By Richard C. Komson and Jessica L. Rando
December 01, 2003

In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Supreme Court held that patent claim construction is an issue of law to be decided exclusively by the court rather than the jury. As a result, district court judges now routinely conduct what is referred to as pretrial Markman hearings in order to resolve disputes about the meaning of words or phrases in patent claims. Prior to Markman, claim construction took place at trial and was decided by the judge or the jury with appropriate instructions from the court.

In theory, placing claim construction solely in the province of the court was intended to simplify the trial and provide uniformity, predictability and reliability. In practice, Markman has provided a vehicle for the district court to avoid a lengthy trial by facilitating the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, noninfringement or infringement following a relatively short pretrial claim construction hearing. However, the practice frequently backfires because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverses and remands a high percentage of these cases because of erroneous claim constructions. Thus, instead of cutting back on the amount of time and money expended on patent litigation, the Markman decision often has the opposite effect.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.