On remand from the Supreme Court following the decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of two claim terms and thus reversed the district court’s infringement holding. In response to the Teva decision, the court held that it need not give any deference to the district court’s claim construction, because, in this case, the intrinsic evidence fully determines the proper constructions. The court held that the prosecution history, the structure of the claim itself, the ordinary meaning of the claim terms, including the Markush group limitations, and the patent’s description of the invention compel a claim construction, and therefore de novo review was proper. Although the district court did hear from experts during the Markman hearing and at trial, there was no indication that the district court made any factual findings that underlie its constructions.
Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2013-1409 (June 3, 2015); Opinion by: Hughes, joined by Prost and Chen; Appealed From: District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Middlebrooks, J. Read the full opinion here.
