[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 Tuesday that appellate review of factual matters in a patent dispute must apply the clear error standard of review, not a de novo standard. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. [docket], the court held that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [official website] was incorrect in applying a de novo standard in its review of claim construction, or what the specific claims in a patent mean. The court declared that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) [text] is the appropriate standard of review and appellate review of factual matters relating to claim construction must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.

In the original claim, Teva brought suit against Sandoz for patent infringement when Sandoz and other firms began marketing a generic version of the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone [National MS Society backgrounder]. Teva’s patent on the drug expires [WSJ report] in September. After considering expert evidence, the district court ruled the patent claim was sufficiently definite and was valid. The Federal Circuit overruled based in part on a de novo standard of review of the patent claim construction. Tuesday’s opinion reverses the decision of the Federal Circuit, based on an improper standard of appellate review. A legal scholar argues this case may represent a milepost along the Supreme Court’s path to reject patent only doctrines [SCOTUSblog op-ed] employed in the Federal Circuit, which could have the potential effect of increasing the Federal Circuit’s control over patent disputes and also the rights of patentees.