517 U.S. 370 (1996)
Markman owns United States Reissue Patent No. 33,054 for his Inventory Control and Reporting System for Drycleaning Stores.1 The patent describes a system that can monitor and report the status, location, and movement of clothing in a dry-cleaning establishment.2
The Markman system consists of a keyboard and data processor to generate written records for each transaction, including a bar code readable by optical detectors operated by employees, who log the progress of clothing through the dry-cleaning process.3 Respondent Westview's product also includes a keyboard and processor, and it lists charges for the dry-cleaning services on bar-coded tickets that can be read by portable optical detectors.4
Markman brought an infringement suit against Westview and Althon Enterprises, an operator of dry-cleaning establishments using Westview’s products.5 Part of the dispute hinged upon the meaning of the word inventory, a term found in Markman’s independent claim 1, which states that Markman’s product can maintain an inventory total and detect and localize spurious additions to inventory.6 The case was tried before a jury, which heard, among others, a witness produced by Markman who testified about the meaning of the claim language.7
After the jury compared the patent to Westview’s device, it found an infringement of Markman’s independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10.8 The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Westview’s deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law.9 One of its reasons was that the term inventory in Markman’s patent encompasses both cash inventory and the actual physical inventory of articles of clothing. The court directed a verdict on the ground that Westview’s device does not have the means to maintain an inventory total.10
Markman appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s judgment.11 Markman sought review, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether the interpretation of a patent claim, including the meaning of disputed terms of art within it, is exclusively within the province of the court or subject to a Seventh Amendment guarantee that a jury will determine the meaning of any disputed term of art about which expert testimony is offered?13
The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to jury trial in suits at common law as existed under English practice in 1791.14 Patent infringement actions descend from 18th-century actions tried to juries.15 When history provides no clear allocation for a subsidiary issue such as claim construction, courts compare the modern practice to earlier ones, consider the relative skills of judge and jury, and weigh statutory policies including uniformity in patent treatment.16 The construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.17
Yes. The cause of action for patent infringement descends from 18th-century actions tried to juries, satisfying the first prong of the historical test.18 The subsidiary issue of construing disputed claim terms such as inventory in Markman’s claim 1 lacks any established jury practice from the period when the Seventh Amendment was adopted.19 Judges traditionally construed written instruments, including patents and specifications.20
Functional considerations favor judicial construction because judges possess specialized training in exegesis, can ensure the internal coherence of the patent document, and promote uniformity through stare decisis, whereas juries lack these advantages in highly technical patent cases.21 The district court therefore properly construed the term inventory as a matter of law and directed a verdict for Westview.22
The interpretation of the patent claim is exclusively within the province of the court.23