
On April 5, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., a decision that impacted patent litigation in the United States probably more than any other since the inception of the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The court held, in an opinion written by Judge Archer, that construction of patent claims, which define the scope of the patentee’s rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for the court, rather than a matter of fact. The court settled the inconsistencies in its precedent and found that “in a case tried to a jury, the court has the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of the language used in the patent claim.” Id. at 979. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit decision on April 23, 1996. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). In an opinion written by Justice Souter, the Supreme Court held that the construction of patent claims, including terms of art within the claims, was within the province of the court, in light of the existing precedent, the suitability of interpretations issues for determination by judges, and the importance of uniformity in treatment of a given patent.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Conference
19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
May 19-20, 2026
Amsterdam
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.