Dismissal on Procedural Grounds May Bar Claims for Later Infringement Under Res Judicata

Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

RICHARD SOWINSKI v. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: Res judicata may bar subsequent claims regarding conduct substantially similar to conduct accused in a prior action that was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

In a prior case, Sowinski sued California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) for patent infringement. Following the filing of several motions to dismiss, both parties filed a joint stipulation that included the statement that the motions were “potentially case dispositive.” After Sowinski failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to a local rule, which provides that such failure can be deemed consent to the granting of a motion. Sowinski appealed the dismissal, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

In the present case, Sowinski filed a substantially identical complaint against CARB, seeking damages only for alleged infringement occurring after the first case was dismissed. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. Sowinski appealed, raising two principal arguments. Sowinski first argued that the merits of patent infringement were not adjudicated in the first suit, and thus res judicata should not apply. The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly applied preclusion, explaining that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication on the merits under FRCP 41(b). Sowinski next argued that preclusion cannot apply since he sought damages only for infringement occurring after the conclusion of the prior case. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that “Dr. Sowinski alleges no different conduct or acts, and the defendant is the same.” The Federal Circuit distinguished between allowing subsequent suits when an act has been adjudged wrongful, and the present case, where the act in question had been adjudged not wrongful.

Editor: Paul Stewart

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens
Contact
more
less

Knobbe Martens on:

Reporters on Deadline

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.