Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 15, 2014
Decided January 20, 2015

Full case name

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Docket nos.

13-854

Citations

574 U.S. _ (more)

,574 S.Ct. __, __ L.Ed._d ___, ___ U.S.P.Q. ___

Prior history

See 723 F. 3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) , vacated and remanded; 810 F. Supp. 2d 578 (S.D. NY), reversed

Holding

When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.

Court membership

Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan

Case opinions

Majority

Breyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan

Dissent

Thomas, joined by Alito

Laws applied

F.R.C.P. 52(a)(6)

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. is a landmark patent Supreme Court case disputing over the Copaxone patent.^[1]^[2] The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.^[3]^[4]^[5]

Facts and procedural history

The case originated in the Southern District of New York, where Sandoz sued to invalidate Teva's patent on a drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In the Markman hearing, Sandoz argued that a claim was fatally indefinite for failing to identify which of three possible meanings a particular claim term, related to the molecular weight of a component of the drug, should be interpreted to have. The district court judge held that the claim term was definite, and that a "person of ordinary skill in the art" would interpret the term "molecular weight" to mean the "peak average molecular weight", that is, the weight of the molecule most prevalent in the mixture. In doing so, the judge relied in part on expert-witness testimony.

Sandoz appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the claim under a 'de novo' standard, decided that the claim term was fatally indefinite, and hence that the patent was invalid.

Teva appealed.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, April 14, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.