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
- Whether interpretation (construction) of patent claim terms is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
- 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.