Teva and Sandoz court - Case Study Example

eral Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a) (6), the Court of appeals ‘must not..set aside ‘a district court’s findings of fact unless that are clearly erroneous. In the case of Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S 564, 574, the case does not make any exceptions or exclude any category of facts from the appeals’ obligation. The rule is applicable to both ultimate and subsidiary facts and thus district court sitting without a jury should not decide factual issues de novo. In the case of Markman V.

Westview Instruments Inc, 517 U.S 370, the court held that the ultimate question of claim construction is for the judge and not the jury and thus it did not set up an exception from the ordinary rule on appellate review of factual matters. The ‘clear error’ is thus important as the district court that has listened to the case has a better opportunity to gain ‘familiarity’ with the scientific principles or problems. Sandoz argued that separating ‘factual’ from ‘legal’ questions may be difficult and thus it was simpler for the appellate court to review the entire district court’s claim construction de novo that apply the two separate standards.

However, the courts have been able to separate the factual from legal matters as evidenced in the case of Options of Chicago Inc v Kaplan, 514 U.S 938. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 majority held when reviewing District’s Court resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of construction of the patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a ‘clear error’ and not the de novo standard of review. Justice Stephen Breyer outlined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a) (6) established the ‘clear erroneous’ standard without any exceptions and thus it was not necessary to create an exception to the standard in the case.

The court pointed that construction of patent claim is a factual determination and thus must be guided by well-established standards. According to the judgment, an appellate court