Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.
- Decided
- April 5, 1995
- Docket
- 92-1049
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,940 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part” — Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc. (2001)
- holding that "[t]he court may, in its discretion, receive extrinsic evidence in order 'to aid the court in coming to a correct conclusion’ ” — Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd. (2003)
- holding that claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part” — Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp. (2008)
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
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge ARCHER, in which Circuit Judges RICH, NIES, MICHEL, PLAGER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL join. Concurring opinions filed by Circuit Judges MAYER, and RADER. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
ARCHER, Chief Judge.
Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. (collectively referred to as Markman) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 91-0940 (entered Oct. 1, 1991), that Westview Instruments, Inc. and Althon Enterprises, Inc. (collectively referred to as Westview) did not infringe claims 1 or 10 of United States Reissue Patent No. 33,054, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict to the contrary. We have ordered that this case be reheard in banc.[1] We affirm the judgment of noninfringement. In doing so, we conclude that the interpretation and construction of patent claims, which define the scope of the patentee’s rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for [*971] the court. Thus, in this case the district court properly discharged its obligation to delineate the scope of the claim on motion for judgment as a matter of law when the jury had rendered a verdict that was incompatible with a proper claim construction.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (1995)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.