News & Analysis as of

Collateral Estoppel Patents

Rule 36 Affirmance Can Create Issue Preclusion for Claim Construction

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of collateral estoppel from a Rule 36 affirmance, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that despite the summary nature of such decisions and the absence of a written opinion...more

Intellectual Ventures Loses Claims Based on § 101, Collateral Estoppel, Standing

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a pair of decisions handed down on the same day by Chief Judge Prost, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down a raft of claims on the basis of various doctrines, including patent ineligibility,...more

Issue Four: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings - In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 3:14-cv0886-JDP (W.D. Wis. April 18, 2017), the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin drew a clear line...more

Issue Preclusion: Patent Owner Does Not Get a Do Over to Assert the Claims Against Similar Products

In Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., [2016-1982] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933. In prior litigation in which Phil-Insul asserted the...more

Novartis v. Noven: The PTAB is not Bound by Prior Decisions of District Courts

Novartis, together with LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme, owns a pair of patents covering rivastigmine transdermal patches. These patches are useful for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Noven Pharmaceuticals filed an abbreviated new...more

PTAB Applies Collateral Estoppel to Exclude Purported Patent Owner

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB issued an order applying collateral estoppel to determine that one purported owner of U.S. Patent 7,215,752 and U.S. Patent 7,844,041 (the “challenged patents”) had no authority to act as the patent owner in...more

It Was Over Before the Fat Lady Sang; Collateral Estoppel Applies to Partial Summary Judgment under §101

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., [2016-1077] (March 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment that all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,984,081 and 6,546,002 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §...more

3D Cinema Systems: ITC Declines to Apply Issue Preclusion Based on PTAB’s IPR Decision

In 3D Cinema Systems (Inv. 939), the Commission issued an opinion that explained why it did not give deference to a decision of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR)....more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

Monday December 5, 2016 - Voxathon v. FCA, No. 16-1614, Courtroom 201 - This decision arises from a E.D. Tex. case in which the court held that Voxathon’s claims directed to a telephone set with multiple call...more

Judge Sullivan Holds “Substantially” the Same is Close Enough for Collateral Estoppel

On September 30, 2016, District Judge Richard J. Sullivan (S.D.N.Y.) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding one of the two asserted patents invalid under principles of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff Joao...more

Prior Art Take 2: Finjan and Sophos Gear up for a Second Battle on Whether Prior Art Was Publicly Available

by Orrick - NorCal IP Group on

Order Denying Finjan, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1197 (Judge William Orrick) In a battle that likely felt like déjà vu for the parties, Finjan for the second time...more

Binding Claim Construction Rulings Pre- Teva Vs. Post -Teva

by WilmerHale on

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions. There has been much discussion about the...more

Bench Trial Findings Come Back to Bite Finjan

by Orrick - NorCal IP Group on

Collateral Estoppel Results In Summary Judgment On Priority Date, Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-05808 (Judge Haywood Stirling Gilliam, Jr.) - How does an accused infringer use a patentee’s...more

Court Permits Additional Discovery Relating To Collateral Estoppel Defense

by Morris James LLP on

At issue in this case is a reissued patent. It was obtained during the appeal in a related matter where the court had ruled for defendants (including the defendant in this case). The appellate court reversed a claim...more

B&B Hardware – District Courts Consider Impact on Both Trademark and Patent Litigation

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation...more

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Kessler Doctrine As A Patent Infringement Defense For Customers

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

Applying a doctrine dating to Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that when a patentee’s infringement action against the manufacturer of an accused product...more

ITC Section 337 Update - June 2015

by King & Spalding on

District Court Declines Barnes & Noble’s Request To Apply Kessler Doctrine To ITC Non-Infringement Decision – On May 31, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern...more

Magistrate Recommends Judgment In Favor Of Defendants Based On Collateral Estoppel

by Morris James LLP on

Burke, M. J. Report and recommendation regarding summary judgment that the defendants’ noninfringement motion be granted in part and denied as moot in part; defendants’ invalidity motion be granted; and plaintiffs’ validity...more

Collateral Estoppel Bars Plaintiff’s Infringement Claims.

by Morris James LLP on

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement due to collateral estoppel and for invalidity are granted. The parties’ motions to exclude opposing expert testimony are denied as moot....more

No Collateral Estoppel in Subsequent Case Where Decision in Earlier Case Subject to Multiple Possible Theories - United Access...

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the applicability of the collateral estoppel doctrine, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that there was no collateral estoppel barring the patentee from reasserting the same patent claims...more

Even after Jury Trial and Final Judgment in Favor of Patent Owner, Collateral Estoppel of Invalidity from a Subsequent, Other...

The plaintiff, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC ("USEI"), filed a patent infringement action against several defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. The district court then transferred the cases to the Northern District of...more

Collateral Estoppel in Claim Construction

by McDermott Will & Emery on

e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Technologies, Inc. - Addressing the issue of collateral estoppel as it relates to an earlier claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and...more

Ineligible Subject Matter in One Court Is Still Ineligible in Another

by McDermott Will & Emery on

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. - Addressing the issue of whether the court was bound by another court’s holding that a patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible subject...more

FTC v. Cephalon, Inc.

by Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The issue in this case is not whether the validity of the ’516 patent should be litigated in the antitrust trial, but rather, how the court’s previous finding of invalidity and...more

Invalidity under § 101 and defensive collateral estoppel defeat second DietGoal case

by Robins Kaplan LLP on

CaDietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08381 - Last month, in DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC, Case No. 1:13–cv-08391–PAE, we reported on Judge Engelmayer’s invalidation of...more

29 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.