About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


56 IDEA 1 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/idea56 and id is 1 raw text is: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES MAY REQUIRE MORE DEFERENCE IN REVIEW OF OBVIOUSNESS CASES NIKA ALDRICH1 CONTENTS Introdu ction .............................................................................. . . 1 I. Teva Requires Greater Deference to a Judge's Fact Findings Regarding Claim Construction ......................... 3 II. Hana Financial Requires Juries to Decide Tacking, Even Though it is a Mixed Question of Fact and Law ....... 4 III. Appellate Review of Mixed Questions of Fact and L aw .......................................................................................... . . 6 IV. After Teva and Hana Financial, Appellate Review of Obviousness May Require More Deference ........... 14 V. Other Supreme Court Cases Favor Granting Greater Deference to Fact Finders .................................................. 20 VI. Obviousness May be More Appropriately Designated a Question of Fact Than One of Law ........ 23 V II. Conclusion .................................................................. 29 INTRODUCTION In two recent decisions, the Supreme Court required that appellate courts give greater deference to district courts 1 Nika Aldrich is an attorney at Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. in Portland, Oregon. His practice focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes. Volume 56- Number 1