About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

5 J.L. & Pol'y 723 (1996-1997)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Its Procedural Shock Wave: The Markman Hearing

handle is hein.journals/jlawp5 and id is 729 raw text is: MARKMAN v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC.* AND ITS PROCEDURAL SHOCK WAVE: THE MARKMAN HEARING Frank M Gasparo INTRODUCTION In Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc.,' the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision holding that a district court judge must construe, as a matter of law, the scope of a patent, including specifically the meaning of its claims.2 This holding has caused a 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). Brooklyn Law School Class of 1998. The author wishes to thank Professor Emeritus Leo J. Raskind from the University of Minnesota Law School for his assistance in the preparation of this Note and Brooklyn Law School Adjunct Professor Robert C. Scheinfeld for his valuable insights. A special thanks to Jessica M. Layton for her continual support and encouragement. 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 772 F. Supp. 1535 (E.D. Pa. 1991). At trial, after the close of Markman's case in chief, Westview Instruments moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the court deferred ruling upon. Id. at 1536. Rather, the court instructed the jury that they were to first construe the patent's claims and then decide if infringement had occurred. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (noting the trial judge's instructions to the jury). The jury found that Westview's device, which was used in laundries and dry cleaners, infringed Markman's patent. Id. After hearing additional arguments following the verdict, the court granted Westview's deferred judgment as a matter of law motion and held that claim construction was a matter of law for the court. Markman, 772 F. Supp. at 1536. As a result, the court interpreted the meaning of the terms in the patent's claims and found that there was no infringement pursuant to the proper construction. Id. at 1536-38. 2 Essentially, the claims in a patent document establish the outer boundaries for a patentee's exclusive right to prevent others from making, using or selling

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most