Patent Claim Construction: A Sliding-Scale Standard of Review

By Mullendore, Laura | The Review of Litigation, Fall 2008 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Patent Claim Construction: A Sliding-Scale Standard of Review


Mullendore, Laura, The Review of Litigation


I. INTRODUCTION

In patent suits, a determination of patent infringement consists of two steps.1 First, the court must determine the scope of the patent claims; second, it must compare the properly construed claims to die allegedly infringing device. Construction of the patent claims establishes the scope of the property rights protected by the patent; it is a fundamental principle of patent law that "the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude."3

Claims are frequently "amenable to multiple interpretations and constructions."4 Currently, patent claim construction is a pure issue of law that does not involve subsidiary or underlying questions of fact, and construction of patent claims is subject to de novo review by the court of appeals.5 However, the de novo standard of review for claim construction has been the subject of criticism, and many scholarly articles have advocated a change in the standard of review as a means of alleviating the problems currently associated with claim construction.6 The Federal Circuit, in Phillips v. AWH Corp. Phillips II), attempted to articulate a methodology to guide district courts in their interpretation of claim terms. But the approach set forth in Phillips II will not solve the problems of predictability, consistency, and efficiency that are currently associated with patent claim construction.

In November 2006, the Federal Circuit denied en banc rehearing in a claim construction case that would have enabled the court to reconsider the rule of de novo review.8 However, the numerous dissents and concurrences in the opinion indicate that at least seven of the twelve active Federal Circuit judges would be willing to revisit the issue under appropriate circumstances.9 The

bulk of scholarly literature advocating a change in the standard of review for claim construction typically endorses a standard for claim construction similar to that used for review of obviousness and enablement determinations - claim construction should be seen as a question of law reviewed de novo, and the underlying factual findings on which the determination is based should be reviewed for clear error.10

This Note asserts that the standard of review for claim construction should be potentially even more deferential - claim construction should be viewed as a mixed question of law and fact, reviewed on a sliding scale between de novo and clear error. The degree of deference given to a particular trial court's claim construction should depend on the nature of the claims, the technology itself, and the underlying factual findings. The more fact-dominated the claim construction is, the more deferential the review should be; the more law-dominated the construction is, the more independent the review should be.

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part II will give an overview of claim construction law and discuss the evolution of current claim construction jurisprudence. Part III will outline the issues and problems currently associated with claim construction. Part IV will argue that the solution proposed by the existing literature on the issue (changing the standard of review so that underlying fact findings are reviewed for clear error) will not go far enough toward alleviating the problems, and it will then outline how a sliding-scale standard of review might function.

II. THE CURRENT STATE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

A. Brief Overview of Patent Law and Claim Construction Principles

A patent is a written document that describes and claims an invention, much like a land deed describes and claims a piece of property.11 The patent begins with a detailed description of the invention known as the specification.12 The specification is followed by patent claims that define the boundaries of the invention and the inventive territory that the patent purports to cover.13 In the claims, the patentee must "particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which [the patentee] claims as his invention or discovery" in order to "secure to him all to which he is entitled, [and] to apprise the public of what is still open to them.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Patent Claim Construction: A Sliding-Scale Standard of Review
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?