This article by Omar Khan and Jeffrey Dennhardt, published by Law360, focuses on whether established case law regarding the preclusive effect of a claim construction ruling in a subsequent or co-pending district court case supports the Teva court's assumption that preclusion is a successful means of achieving uniformity.
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the US Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions. There has been much discussion about the effect of Teva on the resolution of claim construction disputes in district court litigations. Much of that discussion, however, has focused on whether Teva “increase[d] the probability that district court results in patent cases will stand up on appeal.” This article focuses on a different issue—whether established case law regarding the preclusive effect of a claim construction ruling in a subsequent or co-pending district court case supports the Teva court's assumption that preclusion is a successful means of achieving uniformity. Read the full article.
