Markman et al. v. Westview Instruments, Inc., et al.
- Decided
- April 29, 1996
- Docket
- 95-26
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,226 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part” — Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Environmental International, L.C. (2006)
- holding that issue preclusion cannot be asserted against new defendants but noting that generally, stare decisis should promote uniformity in the claim construction of a given patent. — Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Technologies Corp. (2002)
- holding that the resolution of disputed patent claim terms is a question of law for the district court to resolve — Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp. (2005)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether the interpretation of a so-called patent claim, the portion of the patent document that defines the scope of the patentee’s rights, is a matter of law reserved entirely for the court, or subject to a Seventh Amendment guarantee that a jury will determine the meaning of any disputed term of art about which expert testimony is offered. We hold that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court. [*373]
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Markman et al. v. Westview Instruments, Inc., et al., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.