Intellectual Property
Nov. 12, 2009
For Patent Cases, Juries as Fact-finders Is An Obvious Problem
Heather Mewes of Fenwick & West explains why having juries decide the factual issues underlying obviousness in patent cases is problematic.
By Healther Mewes
The Supreme Court has told us that obviousness in patent cases is a question of law, based on underlying findings of fact. What this means is that juries as fact-finders are supposed to decide the underlying factual issues, but judges are supposed to decide the ultimate legal question of patent validity. See KSR Inter., Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007). It seems like a straightforward division of responsibility; the reality, however...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In