## Facts

- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. owned a patent covering an inventory control and reporting system for dry cleaning stores using a keyboard, data processor, and bar-coded tickets scanned to track garments.
- Westview Instruments, Inc. marketed the accused “Exponent” system, which also used a keyboard and processor and printed bar-coded tickets.
- The parties disputed the meaning of the patent claim term “inventory,” including whether it referred to physical garments (and related tracking) versus cash-related records such as invoices or receivables.
- A jury heard evidence, including expert testimony on claim meaning, and returned a verdict finding infringement.
- The district judge granted judgment as a matter of law for Westview after construing the claims and concluding the accused system did not include the claimed “inventory” tracking.

## Issues

1. Whether interpretation (construction) of patent claim terms is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
2. Whether the Seventh Amendment requires a jury to decide the meaning of disputed patent claim terms in an infringement action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held that construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claims, is exclusively for the judge.
- The Court concluded the Seventh Amendment does not require juries to interpret patent claims, even if the court considers extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Patent claim construction is a matter of law for the court, not a factual issue for the jury.
- Seventh Amendment analysis considers (1) the historical analogue of the action at common law and (2) whether the specific issue would have been decided by judge or jury.
- Although patent infringement actions are tried to juries, determining the meaning of claim language is analogous to judicial interpretation of written instruments (e.g., deeds and contracts).
- Consultation of extrinsic materials to understand technical terms does not change the legal character of claim construction; the ultimate interpretive determination remains for the court.
- Judicial claim construction supports uniformity and consistency in patent law by centralizing authoritative interpretation in the court.

## Conclusion

The Court held that judges, not juries, must construe disputed patent claim terms, and that assigning claim construction to the court is consistent with the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial.


Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)