CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference)

Jun 4, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

In Shire v. Watson, Shire is the exclusive licensee of a patent that covers Lialda, a drug used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases. It sued Watson for patent infringement in 2012 after Watson filed a drug application for FDA approval to sell a generic version of Lialda. The district court found the patent valid and infringed based on claim terms construed during Markman. Watson appealed. The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s claim construction de novo, and summarily reversed the district court’s decision. Shire then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the district court had considered extrinsic evidence during Markman that was entitled to deference. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case back to Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. In Teva, the Supreme Court held that factual findings made by a district court when construing the claims of a patent are entitled to deference on appeal and should be overturned only when “clearly erroneous.”

In reaffirming that Shire’s patent was invalid, the Federal Court noted that the district court did not make any factual finding underlying its claim construction ruling. Because the district court did not make any factual finding, the Federal Circuit found that no deferential standard of review was necessary. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the main issue surrounding the district court’s claim construction was whether the disputed terms have an plain and ordinary meaning (which is a question of law subject to de novo review) and not what the terms mean to one skilled in the art (which is a question of fact subject to deference). Most important, the Federal Circuit emphasized that “the [Supreme] Court did not hold that a deferential standard of review is triggered any time a district court hears or receives extrinsic evidence.”

Shire Dev. LLC et al. v. Watson Pharm., Inc. et al., No. 20131409, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9250 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (C.J. Prost).

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition Challenging the PTO Director’s Application of ‘Settled Expectations’ in IPR Proceedings

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

Delaware District Court Judge Maintains View That the Operative Complaint Cannot Provide Requisite Knowledge for Post-Suit Indirect or Willful Infringement in a Lawsuit

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

Federal Circuit: Patentee Acts as a Lexicographer to Impliedly Define Term by Consistently Referring to Feature with Interchangeable Language

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

Federal Circuit: Priority Document that ‘Broadly Outlines’ Possible Structures Fails to Provide Adequate Written Description Support for Subgenus of Linkers in Antibody-Drug Conjugate

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.

CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference)

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries