Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="2">Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png Supreme Court of the United States</td></tr> | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argued January 8, 1996 Decided April 23, 1996 | ||||||
| ||||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Interpretation of patent claim terms is a matter of law for the court to decide. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer | ||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority by: Souter Joined by: unanimous <tr style="text-align: center; background: #6699FF;"><th colspan="2">Laws applied</tr></th><td>U.S. Const. amend. VII</td> |
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law for the court to decide or a question of fact that should be left for the trier of fact.
Big money turns on how effective a particular patent is at blocking potential competitors. The key for a patent holder is getting the proper definition of words used in the patent to allow blocking of the particular troublesome competitive product. Prior to this decision, juries had the responsibility of deciding what the words used in patent claims meant. Opposing results in cases with similar facts were common, and a perception arose that the outcome of such trials was somewhat arbitrary. In Markman, the Court held that judges, not juries, would evaluate and decide the meaning of the words used in patent claims. Judges were to look at four sources for definitions: First, the written description accompanying the patent claims; second, the documentation of the history of the patent as it went through the application process; third, standard dictionaries of English; and finally, if all else fails, expert testimony from experts "skilled in the art" at issue.
This case has had a significant impact on the patent litigation process in the United States. Many jurisdictions now hold Markman Hearings to construe patent claims prior to the start of the actual trial. Patent infringement suits now often settle after this stage of the litigation process.
[edit] Supreme Court decision
In a unanimous ruling, the court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that:
- The construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.
[edit] Ruling
Justice David Souter wrote the unanimous decision of the court.
