A Markman hearing is a judicial proceeding held in the United States District Court for claims dealing with patent infringement.
During a Markman hearing a judge is responsible for interpreting the meaning of words and phrases in a patent, ultimately providing what is known as "claim construction.
[3] In the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,[4] the Supreme Court of the United States held that claim interpretation was a matter of law rather than a question of fact for the jury.
[6] However, courts have determined that in some instances judges are better equipped to address certain issues, like patent claim interpretation, as opposed to juries.
"[9] Put differently, the court must look at the language's plain meaning to determine the intended scope of protection of the patent at issue.
§ 112, a specification contains "a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
[14] After the Supreme Court's decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., the Federal Circuit was faced with determining the proper standard of review of claim construction issues on appeal.
[18] The reason for such high reversal rates was the standard of review, which ultimately resulted in a lack of uniformity and consistency in decisions.
If there is a dispute over the underlying facts, the court may make "[secondary] factual findings as to the credibility of the extrinsic evidence.
[3] The Federal Circuit has not provided clear guidance to the lower courts as to when a hearing should occur, but rather has implied preferences as to when it should take place.
Times at which a Markman hearing may take place includes during pre-discovery, at summary judgment, and at trial, but before jury instructions.
[3] Prior to 2015, should a court dismiss a case at summary judgment, the claim construction was subject to de novo review.
[18] However, studies are still to premature to determine whether reversal rates will remain as high as they have under a de novo review standard.