Case Name: Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc. 517 U.S. 370 (1996)

Facts: Herbert Markman created a patent for a dry cleaning system that could both track transactions and locate dry cleaning with a bar code scan. Westview Instruments, Inc. had a similar system in place, but they did not have a patent. A jury found that Westview Instruments, Inc. infringed upon the patent after hearing expert witness testimony. The District Court for the case then delivered its verdict.

Procedural History: The District Court delivered their verdict after hearing the jury's findings. Their verdict differed from the jury's. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on the basis that claim terms are to be decided by a judge and not through a jury trial.

Issues: Is this a decision that should be granted to a judge, or is it left for a jury trial to determine? Infringement cases were historically decided by juries dating back to 1791 English Common Law, the precedent for Seventh Amendment jury trials. There is no precedent for claim construction and jury trials.

Holding: This case is a case to be decided by a judge and does not need to include a jury to reach a verdict.

Reasoning: The Court affirmed the ruling and ruled that the construction of a patent, including the terms of art in the claim, is exclusively, within the province of the Court. Since there was no precedent, and therefore no foolproof test, the Court ruled they must make a judgment about the scope of the Seventh Amendment. The Court ruled that interpretation of patents, legal documents, has been committed to the Court. This is partly due to the fact that judges have training and experience in dealing with patents. While expert testimony may be used to explain technical aspects, the Court ruled it was up to the courts to actually interpret.

Dissents: None

My Comments: It would seem that in any situation other than patent law this case would deserve a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. However, the judges ruled that the Court has the right to make the decisions on this matter due to their expertise. While I understand that the Court does have more experience in this line, it does seem to me that people are being kept from a jury trial them seem to deserve.