In the 1995 case of Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Althon Enterprises, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that interpretation of patent claims is a matter for judges rather than juries to decide. The dispute arose over an alleged infringement by Westview on a patented inventory system owned by Markman's company, Positek. Initially, the jury found in favor of Markman but this was overturned by an appeals court which held that claim construction was a question for the jury not judge alone to determine as it involved factual inquiries such as understanding how those skilled in relevant art would interpret certain terms used in patent claims. However, upon further appeal to Supreme Court it unanimously decided (7-2) that since patents are legal documents with technical terms and phrases whose meanings may be unclear even within their industry context; interpreting them should fall under purview of trained judges who can better understand these complexities rather than lay jurors.

In the dissenting opinion for Markman v. Westview Instruments, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that juries should be allowed to interpret patent claims. He contended that historical precedent and the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution support this view, as they guarantee a jury trial in civil cases where legal rights are at stake. Stevens also pointed out that judges often rely on expert testimony to understand technical aspects of patents, which is essentially what jurors would do if given the task of interpreting patent claims. Furthermore, he suggested that allowing juries to interpret patents could lead to more consistent decisions because multiple jurors must agree on an interpretation rather than just one judge making a decision unilaterally.