Supreme Court Patent Scorecard Update: Teva v. Sandoz Is Patent-Neutral, But Should Impact The Claim Construction Process

The Supreme Court’s most recent patent decision, Teva v. Sandoz (Jan. 20, 2015), establishes a hybrid standard for reviewing a district court’s claim construction. The Court specifically held that evidentiary, i.e., factual, underpinnings to claim construction are reviewed for clear error, but the ultimate claim construction still is reviewed de novo.

Teva’s hybrid standard of review is not pro- or anti-patent. However, Teva likely will have an immediate impact on patent litigation. In particular, Teva likely will result in claim construction arguments and rulings that expressly identify what the parties and the district court deem to be factual findings, on the one hand, and legal conclusions, i.e., the ultimate claim construction, on the other hand. Such identification, or attempted identification, may well spawn ancillary disputes as to where the factual findings stop and the legal conclusions begin.