De Novo Standard of Review

News & Analysis as of

Where Do We Go from Here? Teva’s Impact on IPR and District Court Practice

The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more

Intellectual Property Legal News: Volume 2, Number 1

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IS IT TIME TO RETHINK HOW YOU WILL ARGUE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION? The United States Supreme Court decided in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. that the Federal Circuit must review all...more

B&B Hardware v. Hargis – U.S. Supreme Court Declares TTAB Findings Can Have Preclusive Effect on Subsequent Federal Court...

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second decision in substantive trademark law in nearly a decade. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., No. 13-352, slip op. at 22, 575 U.S. __ (2015). ...more

Federal Circuit Confines De Novo Claim Construction Review by Limiting Consideration to Intrinsic Evidence - In re Papst Licensing...

Addressing for the first time the issue of claim construction since the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review, giving no deference...more

Appellate Review of Claim Construction Still De Novo if Based Solely on Intrinsic Evidence - Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco...

Two appeals following the Supreme Court’s modification of the standard of appellate review on claim construction in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (IP Update,Vol. 18, No. 1) indicate that it is largely business as...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q1 2015

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Patent – Decided: January 20, 2015 - Holding: When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made during its construction of a patent claim,...more

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

Supreme Court: Patent Claim Construction – Two Standards Of Review

The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal...more

In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest...more

The Supreme Court's New Standard of Appellate Review for Claim Construction

On January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court redefined the standard of appellate review for claim construction. In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated well-established Federal Circuit...more

Federal Circuit Review - February 2015

More Deference to District Courts in Claim Construction - In TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. v. SANDOZ, INC., No. 13-854, the Supreme Court held that factual findings underpinning claim construction rulings are reviewed...more

Circuit Courts Explain Privilege Issue Appellate Review Standards

Attorney-client privilege issues frequently involve a complicated mixture of fact and law. Three circuit court decisions issued in a three-week period explain the basic approach that most courts take. ...more

Supreme Court Announces Standard of Review for Factual Issues Underlying Patent Claim Construction: Implications Beyond Patent Law

The United States Supreme Court, clarifying the proper standard of review of factual findings arising during a court’s construction of patent claims, held that such “evidentiary underpinnings” should be reviewed for clear...more

Will Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Change Patent Litigation?

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more

Claim Construction Deconstructed—Another Layer of Diverging Standards

The America Invents Act (AIA) implemented post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as an alternative to litigation at district courts in the federal circuit. Since its institution, much focus has...more

Supreme Court: Claim Construction Is Subject to Hybrid Review - Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc.

In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more

Practice Considerations Post Teva v. Sandoz

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...more

Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation

The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not...more

Patent Claim Construction Subject to Hybrid Review Standard

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., U.S. No. 13-854 (Jan. 20, 2015) - Answering the long debated question of what deference the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should give in reviewing district court...more

Why Did the Supreme Court GVR the Shire Lialda Case?

On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more

Supreme Court Cuts Out a Slice of the Federal Circuit’s De Novo Pie

Recently, the Supreme Court changed the standard of review the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing district court claim construction decisions in patent cases. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___...more

The Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard for Reviewing Fact-finding in Claims Construction

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the standard of review of factual findings by the trial court in construing patent claims. The Court ruled that factual findings in the context of...more

Supreme Court Permits Appeal To Go Forward in LIBOR Antitrust Lawsuit

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided a narrow but important issue of appellate jurisdiction in cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A...more

Supreme Court Orders Federal Circuit To Defer To District Court Factual Findings During Patent Claim Construction: Will Markman...

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more

Teva Decision Will Be Felt in Future Patent Claim Construction Hearings

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Case No. 13-854), which changed the level of deference the Federal Circuit must show to district court claim...more

69 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×