XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[meddoyeddo]

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9f99ec2c-72aa-4075-bde4-c12d3bd575a5

I. Teva’s Arguments

Teva’s argument emphasized that (1) patents are written for a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) rather than for a judge; (2) claim terms must be interpreted in a manner that comports with how a POSA would have understood the term; and (3) determination of how a POSA would have understood a term often involves underlying factual inquiries. Because district courts have historically been entrusted with the task of factfinding, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 allows appellate courts to disturb these factual findings only upon a showing of clear error, Teva argued that the factual findings underpinning claim-construction rulings should be reviewed on appeal for clear error, and not de novo. Teva further noted that before the creation of the Federal Circuit, courts of appeals applied clear-error review to the factual determinations underpinning district courts’ claim-construction decisions.

Should SCOTUS rule in favor of Teva, it may force CAFC to defer to the jury for findings of fact unless there is a finding of clear error. This did not happen in I/P Engine case.

I/P Engine will appeal to SCOTUS, which, based on a favourable Teva ruling, may grant certiorari and chose to hear the case or remand it back to Federal Court.