Teva and Sandoz court case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Teva and Sandoz judicature - Case Study Exampleeral Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a) (6), the Court of appeals must not..set aside a district hooks findings of fact unless that are clearly erroneous. In the circumstance of Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S 564, 574, the content does not make any exceptions or exclude any category of facts from the appeals obligation. The find oneself is applicable to both ultimate and subsidiary facts and thus district court sitting without a jury should not decide factual issues de novo. In the case of Markman V. Westview Instruments Inc, 517 U.S 370, the court held that the ultimate question of claim construction is for the judge and not the jury and thus it did not set up an exception from the ordinary incur on appellant review of factual matters. The clear error is thus important as the district court that has listened to the case has a better chance to gain familiarity with the scientific principles or problems.Sandoz argued that separatin g factual from legal questions may be difficult and thus it was simpler for the appellate court to review the entire district courts claim construction de novo that apply the two separate standardiseds. However, the courts have been able to separate the factual from legal matters as evidenced in the case of Options of Chicago Inc v Kaplan, 514 U.S 938.The Supreme Court in a 7-2 majority held when reviewing Districts Court resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of construction of the patent claim, the national Circuit must apply a clear error and not the de novo standard of review. Justice Stephen Breyer outlined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (a) (6) established the clear erroneous standard without any exceptions and thus it was not necessary to create an exception to the standard in the case. The court pointed that construction of patent claim is a factual determination and thus must be guided by well-established standards. According to the judgment, an appellate court