United States: If High Court Reverses Teva, Litigation Costs May Increase

Last Updated: October 22 2014
Article by Irena Royzman and Aron Fischer

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown an increasing willingness to review and, more often than not, reverse, patent law decisions from the Federal Circuit. As others have observed, the Supreme Court's growing interest in patent law seems to be motivated by policy concerns about the scope and costs of the patent system. Unfortunately, our analysis suggests that the policy arguments presented to the court in its latest patent law case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., which was argued Wednesday, are off-base.

Teva challenges the Federal Circuit's practice of reviewing all claim construction issues, including expert testimony and other evidence "extrinsic" to the patent and its prosecution history, de novo — that is, without deference to the lower courts' initial determinations. Teva — along with the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, which argued in partial support of the petition — focuses on the apparent contradiction between the Federal Circuit's approach and the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), which requires factual findings to be reviewed with deference (for "clear error"). Sandoz, for its part, relies primarily on the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., which held that claim construction should be conducted by judges rather juries. Sandoz argues that Markman "effectively decided" that claim construction must be reviewed de novo on appeal.

At oral argument, the justices struggled to articulate the precise role of fact-finding in claim construction and ultimately seemed divided on the question presented. As Justice John Roberts commented with characteristic understatement, "You know, the difference between questions of law and fact has not always been an easy one for the court to draw."

It is unlikely, however, that the Supreme Court granted certiorari merely to grapple with this abstract question. Notwithstanding its growing appetite for patent law, the Supreme Court usually limits itself to questions it sees as particularly consequential.

Teva and its supporters argue that the standard of review for claim construction is consequential because de novo review results in too many costly reversals and retrials. They contend that deferring to lower court claim construction determinations will lower reversal rates and therefore the costs of patent litigation.

Our research, however, suggests that this argument is not correct. On the contrary, increased deference to district court factual findings is more likely to increase litigation costs than decrease them.

The high cost of patent litigation is clearly an important issue. The costs of patent cases have soared to an average of $5.5 million in cases where more than $25 million is at stake and $2.6 million for cases with less at stake. So-called "patent trolls" — companies that buy up often dubious patents to sue others rather than make anything of their own — are part of the problem: Suits filed by patent trolls cost $29 billion in 2011. This means less money for innovation and higher prices for consumers.

It is also probably true that one reason costs are high is that patent cases bounce back and forth between the trial court and the Federal Circuit. Even after a case has a verdict, the Federal Circuit often decides that the trial court made a mistake and orders the court to start over. Although the evidence on this is disputed, the Federal Circuit is widely perceived as a "hyperactive" court, reversing trial court decisions more often than other federal courts of appeals.

According to Teva, as well as some amici curiae and Federal Circuit judges, de novo review of claim construction is a significant reason for this costly situation. As Teva argued in its petition, "the Federal Circuit's wrongheaded rule has imposed billions of dollars in litigation costs on patentees and infringement defendants alike, who must litigate to final judgment in district court, only to be sent back for new proceedings once the Federal Circuit reverses the claim construction based on its own reading of the underlying factual record." Judge Kathleen O'Malley, dissenting with three other judges in the Federal Circuit's en banc Lighting Ballast decision, similarly argued that the Federal Circuit's rule creates "greater incentives for losing parties to appeal, thus discouraging settlements and increasing the length and cost of litigation." In support of this argument, Teva and others have cited various studies showing significant reversal rates for district court claim construction opinions.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses correlation with causation. While it may be true that claim construction rulings are both reviewed de novo and often reversed, this does not prove that the reversal rates are caused by de novo review. Our research suggests that they are not.

We found a point of comparison in the Federal Circuit's decisions on another important patent issue — whether a patented invention is obvious. Unlike with claim construction, the Federal Circuit defers to factual findings on obviousness. This allowed us to test whether a trial court is reversed less when the Federal Circuit defers to factual findings.

Although claim construction reversal rates are significant, they are not as high as they used to be. One recent study examined the Federal Circuit's claim construction decisions from 2005 through 2011 and found that 23 percent of cases were reversed or sent back to the trial court because of a mistake in claim construction. In both 2010 and 2011, the Federal Circuit reversed the construction of about 20 percent of the claim terms they considered.

We examined the Federal Circuit's obviousness decisions in 2010 and 2011. What we found looked familiar: 22 percent of the cases were reversed or sent back to the trial court for another go.

Even with deference, then, the Federal Circuit reverses trial courts at roughly that same rate as without deference. In other words, a Supreme Court decision that requires deference will not reduce the number of reversals and do-overs.

Not only is a deferential standard of review for claim construction unlikely to reduce litigation costs by lowering reversal rates, it is likely to drive up litigation costs by increasing the use of expensive expert witnesses.

Currently, patent litigants typically do not use expert witnesses to testify about claim construction. This is because the Federal Circuit places little value on evidence from dueling experts in its de novo review of claim construction. As the Federal Circuit has made clear, expert testimony "may only be relied upon if the patent documents, taken as a whole, are insufficient to enable the court to construe disputed claim terms. Such instances will rarely, if ever, occur."

If the Supreme Court requires deference to a trial court's claim construction findings, expert testimony will immediately take on more weight. In virtually every patent case, litigants will feel obliged to engage scientific experts to testify to facts the trial court can use in claim construction in an attempt to shield claim construction rulings from appeal. The fees for these additional procedures, resulting from departure from de novo review, will increase the cost of patent cases.

The Supreme Court reversed or vacated five out of six patent-related cases this year, and this case, despite a seemingly divided court, may well be the sixth. But despite the hopes of many, this change will raise, not reduce, litigation costs.

Originally published by Law360.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fenwick & West LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fenwick & West LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions