Brief Fact Summary. Markman (Plaintiff) claimed that Westview (Defendant) had infringed upon his patent for a device to monitor inventory in dry-cleaning establishments.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is a matter to be decided by the court, not a jury.
Issue. Is the construction of a patent claim a question of law for the court?
Held. (Souter, J.)Â Yes.Â The construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is a matter to be decided by the court, not a jury.Â The right of jury trial is preserved by the Seventh Amendment since common law in 1791 when the Amendment was adopted.Â Patent infringement cases must still be tried to a jury, as they were in the 18th century.Â However, during the trial there may be questions of law for the court, even though the ultimate dispute must be decided by the jury.Â When the Seventh Amendment passed, modern claim practice did not exist.Â The closest 18th century comparison was the specification, and evidence does not exist showing that construction of the specification was a jury issue.Â There is no history or functional considerations that support Plaintiff’s argument that terms of art within the claim must be submitted to a jury.Â The judge is in the best position to decide which definition of terms within the patent fit best with the overall structure, as he has the duty of interpreting the patent as a whole.Â Finally, by treating interpretive issues as matters of law, consistency and predictability is fostered between and among courts.Â The judgment is affirmed.
But whereas issue preclusion could not be asserted against new and independent infringement defendants even within a given jurisdiction, treating interpretive issues as purely legal will promote (though it will not guarantee) intrajurisdictional certainty through the application of stare decisis on those questions not yet subject to interjurisdictional uniformity under the authority of the single appeals court.View Full Point of Law