Claim construction is the process by which a court fixes the meaning of the language in a patent's claims before infringement or validity can be assessed. Since Markman v. Westview Instruments, courts have treated claim interpretation as a question of law for the judge to decide, typically at a dedicated pretrial hearing that takes the informal name 'Markman hearing.'

The court builds its construction primarily from intrinsic evidence: the claim language itself, the specification, and the prosecution history (the file wrapper of arguments and amendments made to the patent office). Extrinsic evidence, such as dictionaries and expert testimony, can inform the analysis but cannot override clear intrinsic evidence. Because so much downstream litigation strategy depends on how key terms are read, a Markman ruling is often the single most outcome-determinative event in a patent case, frequently prompting stipulated judgments or settlement shortly after.

In a simulation, a pending claim construction dispute is a branch point: a user can model how the case tree forks under a broad reading versus a narrow reading of a disputed term, and see how infringement exposure and invalidity risk move together as that one dial is turned, rather than treating the construction outcome as a fixed input.

Litigators use claim construction analysis early to stress-test both infringement and invalidity theories, since the same claim term often has to support a workable meaning under both doctrines simultaneously. Parties exchange proposed constructions, brief them, and sometimes hold a technology tutorial before the hearing; the resulting order then reshapes summary judgment briefing, expert reports, and settlement posture for the remainder of the case.