English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz brings the standard of review of patent construction rulings into line with foundational juridical principles of appellate review, resolving one of the most divisive issues in patent litigation over the past two decades. This article shows that the decision's efficacy depends critically upon how district courts adapt their case management. District judges will need to implement effective procedures for ferreting out subsidiary factual disputes bearing on claim construction, scour the intrinsic evidence for contraindications, develop a sufficient evidentiary record for resolving the dispute, and explain their analysis. The article also explores the interplay of claim construction and claim indefiniteness.

Restoring the Fact/Law Distinction in Patent Claim Construction