and often thanks to a ruling the supreme court handed down close to 20 years ago called markman, they have what's called a markman hear chg is basically a little mini trial before the court, not a jury, where they decide what the terms in the patent mean. often you have experts testify. now, usually in federal court when you have experts come in and testify and the judge decides which expert he believes and which expert he doesn't, that is reviewed very deferential on appeal. the patent court for many years said it will review everything for itself. it won't extend any difference to the trial courts on interpretation of the patent. they're overarching animating principle is we are the single patent appeals court. we have to make everything uniform. our interpretation has to be what controls. we don't want different interpretations in different district courts to decide. the u.s. supreme court is the final answer on all of these questions will have to decide whether it believes the federal circuit's justification for reviewing these things for itself or whether we'll see a little more

, and often thanks to a ruling the supreme court had 20 years ago, they have the what is called a markman hearing, which is base late minitrial before the court, not a jury, where they decide what the terms in the patent mean, often you have experts testify. usually in federal court when you have experts come in and testify and the judge decides which expert he believes and which expert he doesn't, that kind of thing is reviewed very differentially on appeal. the patent appeals court has decided it's going to review everything for itself. it's not going to extend any deference to the trial courts on the interpretation of a patent, and their overarching animating principle is we're the single patent appeals court. be have to make everything uniform. our interpretation has to be what controls. we don't want different interpretations in different district courts to survive show. u.s. supreme court, which is really the final answer, has to decide whether it believes the federal circuit's justification for reviewing these things for itself or whether we'll see a little more deference to the tr

, and often thanks to a ruling the supreme court had 20 years ago, they have the what is called a markman hearing, which is base late minitrial before the court, not a jury, where they decide what the terms in the patent mean, often you have experts testify. usually in federal court when you have experts come in and testify and the judge decides which expert he believes and which expert he doesn't, that kind of thing is reviewed very differentially on appeal. the patent appeals court has decided it's going to review everything for itself. it's not going to extend any deference to the trial courts on the interpretation of a patent, and their overarching animating principle is we're the single patent appeals court. be have to make everything uniform. our interpretation has to be what controls. we don't want different interpretations in different district courts to survive show. u.s. supreme court, which is really the final answer, has to decide whiffit believes the federal circuit's justification for reviewing these things for itself or whether we'll see a little more deference to the trial