What Happened
In patent litigation, the first big battle is often over what the patent claims actually mean. This happens at a "Markman hearing," named after a 1996 Supreme Court case that said judges, not juries, decide claim meaning. The outcome often determines who wins the whole case.
Why It Matters
Patent claims are written in technical legalese. Words like "coupled to," "configured to," or "substantially parallel" can mean different things to different people. The patent owner wants a broad interpretation that covers the accused product. The accused infringer wants a narrow interpretation that excludes it.
The judge looks at three main sources: the claim language itself, the patent specification (the detailed description), and the prosecution history (what was said during examination). These are called "intrinsic evidence" and they matter most. Dictionaries and expert testimony can help, but they can't contradict what the patent itself says.
After the Markman hearing, the judge issues an order defining the disputed terms. Often, one side or the other then moves for summary judgment—arguing that under the court's construction, there's either clear infringement or clear non-infringement. Studies show claim construction is case-dispositive in a majority of patent cases.
What You Should Know
If you're litigating a patent, invest heavily in claim construction. This is where cases are won and lost. Pick your battles—don't dispute every term, just the ones that matter. Support your positions with specific citations to the specification and prosecution history.
If you're drafting patents, think ahead to litigation. Use terms consistently. Define important words. Make sure the specification supports the scope you want. What you write during prosecution can come back to haunt you, so be careful about disclaimers and distinctions.
The Markman hearing isn't the whole case, but it's often the most important part. Treat it that way.