News & Analysis as of

Infringement Collateral Estoppel

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims

After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues. Background - In...more

King & Spalding

ITC Section 337 Update - June 2015

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

JAMS

An arbitration award may not be the end of the road in patent disputes - Several cases serve as examples to the contrary

JAMS on

When a patent dispute goes to arbitration, there is the possibility that an outside party could try to influence the outcome by going to court. This may come as a surprise, given that Section 294 of the Patent Act specifies...more

BakerHostetler

Patent Watch: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC

BakerHostetler on

On April 19, 2013, in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman,* Prost, Reyna) affirmed the district court's ruling that prior litigation collaterally estopped Aspex...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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.
- hide
- hide