Lets examine my statement part by part and determine which part is incorrect:

Markman hearings were brought about because jurys made up of the general population have to deal, sometimes, with complicated engineering and technical issues that they are more than likely unable to comprehend. So, the Judge determines these issues at the Markman hearing and how they pertain to the law.Then if the case goes to trial instructs the jury at trial regarding these issues. So, in a sense the Judge determines infringement

,

Form the Supreme Courts ruling in Markman Vs Westview instruments:

c) Since evidence of common law practice at the time of the Framing does not entail application of the Seventh Amendment's jury guarantee to the construction of the claim document, this Court must look elsewhere to characterize this determination of meaning in order to allocate it as between judge or jury. Existing precedent, the relative interpretive skills of judges and juries, and statutory policy considerations all favor allocating construction issues to the court. As the former patent practitioner, Justice Curtis, explained, the first issue in a patent case, construing the patent, is a question of law, to be determined by the court. The second issue, whether infringement occurred, is a question of fact for a jury. Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 338. Contrary to Markman's contention, Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812, and Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. 453, neither indicate that 19th century juries resolved the meaning of patent terms of art nor undercut Justice Curtis's authority. Functional considerations also favor having judges define patent terms of art. A judge, from his training and discipline, is more likely to give proper interpretation to highly technical patents than a jury and is in a better position to ascertain whether an expert's proposed definition fully comports with the instrument as a whole. Finally, the need for uniformity in the treatment of a given patent favors allocation of construction issues to the court. Pp. 13-21.

I believe the above indicates that a Judge has more technical ability to comprehend complicated issues than a Jury. Which is the point I was making.

Refer to : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...

Next:

Markman hearings were brought about because jurys made up of the general population have to deal, sometimes, with complicated engineering and technical issues that they are more than likely unable to comprehend. So, the Judge determines these issues at the Markman hearing and how they pertain to the law.Then if the case goes to trial instructs the jury at trial regarding these issues. So, in a sense the Judge determines infringement

I can not see any disagreement here

Next:

Markman hearings were brought about because jurys made up of the general population have to deal, sometimes, with complicated engineering and technical issues that they are more than likely unable to comprehend. So, the Judge determines these issues at the Markman hearing and how they pertain to the law.Then if the case goes to trial instructs the jury at trial regarding these issues. So, in a sense the Judge determines infringement

I see no conflict here:

Next:

Markman hearings were brought about because jurys made up of the general population have to deal, sometimes, with complicated engineering and technical issues that they are more than likely unable to comprehend. So, the Judge determines these issues at the Markman hearing and how they pertain to the law.Then if the case goes to trial instructs the jury at trial regarding these issues. So, in a sense the Judge determines infringement

You are correct a jury does determine infringement, but my statement was" So, in a sense" meaning in this case that since the Markman Hearing results are so strongly relied upon that the case can well be won or lost by their results.

So, in a sense the Judge determines infringement.

Example:

Typically, after a "Markman" hearing, the successful party will file a motion for summary judgment on patent infringement and/or validity, which is granted with increasing frequency. Accordingly, the importance of the "Markman" hearing in patent litigation cases cannot be overstated.

Referm to: http://www.townsend.com/resource/pub...

So in conclusion I don't see where the statement is incorrect