October Term 2014 · Docket 13-854
Who decides disputed facts in patent claim construction?
Teva and Sandoz dispute whether appellate courts must defer to trial judges on factual findings during patent claim construction.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Jay argued that trial judges find facts in this case. He stated that appellate courts should defer to those findings. He emphasized the presence of contested facts in the record.
Ms. Anders argued that factual findings rely on evidence outside the patent. She distinguished these findings from pure legal inferences. She contended that deference applies to evidence-based determinations.
Mr. Phillips argued that the distinction between facts and law is clear. He suggested that few cases involve contested facts in claim construction. He maintained that legal questions require de novo review.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz argue over the standard of review for patent claim construction. Teva argues trial judges find facts. Sandoz argues claim construction is a legal question. The Court must decide which standard applies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 15, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 17-19
What each side wants
Teva wants the Supreme Court to require appellate courts to defer to trial judges on factual findings in claim construction.
Sandoz wants the Supreme Court to allow appellate courts to review claim construction de novo without deference.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
What each side says
Teva argues that claim construction often relies on subsidiary facts. Trial judges are best positioned to weigh evidence. Appellate courts should apply a deferential standard under Rule 52.
Sandoz argues that claim construction is a question of law. Appellate courts must review these determinations de novo. This ensures uniform interpretation of patent rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked about the hybrid nature of claim construction in prior cases.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a skilled artisan would make specific inferences during construction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-1
Why it matters
The outcome determines how appellate courts review patent disputes. It affects the cost and duration of patent litigation. It influences the stability of patent rights for pharmaceutical companies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 31-13 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 31-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 31-29 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 31-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 47-23 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 47-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 33-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.