In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions.[1] There has been much discussion about the effect of Teva on the resolution of claim construction disputes in district court litigations. Much of that discussion, however, has focused on whether Teva "increase[d] the probability that district court results in patent cases will stand up on appeal."[2] This article focuses on a different issue — whether established case law regarding the preclusive effect of a claim construction ruling in a subsequent or co-pending district court case supports the Teva court's assumption that preclusion is a successful means of achieving uniformity.
Please click here to continue reading
Originally published by Law360, July 11, 2016
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
