The U.S. Supreme Court kicked 2015 off with an intellectual property bang, issuing two important rulings earlier this week. Both decisions focus on the facts underpinning intellectual property disputes—who decides them and what it means when those rulings are appealed:

PATENTS -

Parties’ ability to rely on a district court’s claim construction ruling just got a little bit stronger.

The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing all trial court patent claim construction rulings anew on appeal. Since 1998, the Federal Circuit has analyzed all claim constructions on appeal de novo, giving no deference to the decision of the lower court. Now, when claim construction rulings involve factual findings, the Federal Circuit will review those factual findings for clear error, giving deference to the trial judge. It is important to note that the de novo standard still applies when the claim construction ruling does not depend on findings of fact. For example, when a district court issues a claim construction ruling that only looks at the patent itself without looking at evidence outside the patent, the Federal Circuit will still review the claim construction ruling de novo. However, when the trial judge looks at scientific materials outside the patent to determine what claim language meant at a given time, those factual determinations will be given deference. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., 574 U.S. ___ (2015).