Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. case brief summary
517 U.S. 370 (1996)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner, the owner of a patent that described a system that could monitor and report the status, location, and movement of clothing in a dry-cleaning establishment, filed a suit against respondents, the maker of an alleged infringing product (maker) and an operator of a dry-cleaning establishment using the alleged infringing product, for patent infringement. Respondent maker denied infringement. Part of the dispute hinged upon the meaning of the word "inventory," a term found in one of petitioner's claims. A jury found infringement. However, the trial court granted respondents' deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law, because under its interpretation of "inventory," respondent maker's system did not infringe petitioner's patent. That judgment was affirmed by the court below.
DISCUSSION
The judgment of the court below was affirmed on appeal based on the Court's holding that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, were exclusively within the province of the courts.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, were exclusively within the province of the courts. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was affirmed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
517 U.S. 370 (1996)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, a patent owner, sought
review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of
law in favor of respondents, alleged by petitioner to have infringed
the patent at issue, despite a jury's finding of infringement, based
on the court's own construction of a term of art within petitioner's
patent.CASE FACTS
Petitioner, the owner of a patent that described a system that could monitor and report the status, location, and movement of clothing in a dry-cleaning establishment, filed a suit against respondents, the maker of an alleged infringing product (maker) and an operator of a dry-cleaning establishment using the alleged infringing product, for patent infringement. Respondent maker denied infringement. Part of the dispute hinged upon the meaning of the word "inventory," a term found in one of petitioner's claims. A jury found infringement. However, the trial court granted respondents' deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law, because under its interpretation of "inventory," respondent maker's system did not infringe petitioner's patent. That judgment was affirmed by the court below.
DISCUSSION
The judgment of the court below was affirmed on appeal based on the Court's holding that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, were exclusively within the province of the courts.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, were exclusively within the province of the courts. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was affirmed.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment