Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation
         

  

July 2015

  

Teva Standard of Review Becomes Outcome-Determinative in Fed. Circuit Ruling Last Week

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

For more information about this alert, please contact:

  

Keith J. Grady

Practice Area Chair

Author

314.552.6883

Email | Bio

  

Additional Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation Practice Leadership:

  

Gary E. Hood

Practice Area Vice Chair

312.873.3653

Email | Bio

  

To view a full list of our Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation professionals, click here.

  

For current Intelligence or to learn more about our Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice, click here.

  


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.

 

   

Earlier this year in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015), the Supreme Court changed the appellate standard of review for claim construction decisions. The Court held that while claim construction is a legal question reviewed de novo on appeal, any underlying factual findings based on extrinsic evidence are reviewed for clear error. Since the decision, commentators have speculated about the significance of the Teva decision and the impact it would have on claim construction decisions in the future.

We now have a prime example of the kind of case in which the new standard of review will be outcome-determinative. In last week's Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Phillips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 2012-1014 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) decision, the Federal Circuit applied the new standard of review and reversed its prior ruling. This decision makes clear how important expert and inventor testimony will be under the new claim construction standard of review announced by the Supreme Court in the Teva v. Sandoz case. Additionally, by emphasizing that the extrinsic evidence did not contradict unambiguous claim meaning that was clear from the specification, the Federal Circuit made clear that there are limits on the use of extrinsic evidence in claim construction.

At issue in Lighting Ballast was the meaning of the claim term "voltage source means." Based on testimony of the inventor and a retained expert witness, the district court determined that the term did not warrant means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term to mean "a rectifier, which converts alternating current ("AC") to direct current ("DC"), or other structure capable of supplying useable voltage to the device."

On the initial appeal, the Federal Circuit applied the de novo standard of review, reversed the district court's claim construction ruling, and held the claim indefinite based on the lack of corresponding structure in the specification. On rehearing en banc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the panel decision. Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Phillips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. 744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Teva v. Sandoz, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit. On remand, the Federal Circuit held that the district court correctly relied on extrinsic evidence to understand the disputed claim term and that its factual findings as to the meaning of that term were supported by testimony from the inventor and the expert witness. Accordingly, because the extrinsic evidence was not used to contradict claim meaning that was unambiguous based on the specification, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

For More Information

For additional information on this case and how it may impact your business concerns, please contact the author, a member of Polsinelli's Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation practice, or your Polsinelli attorney.

 
 

  

     

  

 
         

 

 

 

  

     

  

 
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

  

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 750 attorneys in 18 offices, serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service and top five percent of firms for innovating new and valuable services*, the firm has risen more than 100 spots in Am Law's annual firm ranking over the past six years. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* BTI Client Service A-Team 2015 and BTI Brand Elite 2015

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2015 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation Polsinelli