Nothing Special About A Specialty Court

The Supreme Court reminded everyone, once again, that just because patent cases are heard by a special court of appeals, they are not governed by special rules that apply only to patent cases. In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Court ruled 7–2 that when there are subsidiary factual issues in claim construction, they are governed on appeal by the same rule, namely, Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as any other factual finding on appeal. This means that such findings are reviewed for clear error, and are not reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit has done for years.

Whether this makes any practical difference remains to be seen. Furthermore, if there is no factual evidence considered by the district court, such as expert testimony on the meaning of technical terms in the prior art, then claim construction will continue to be a legal issue reviewed de novo on appeal.

For many patent cases, then, there may not be any real change. Nevertheless, the Court’s broader message to the Federal Circuit is clear—treat patent lawsuits like all other lawsuits.