Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn -- Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure)
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a...more
Addressing for the first time whether an invalidity order merges with a voluntary dismissal for purposes of finality, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an interlocutory order merges with the final...more
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more
The District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment which sought to invalidate a dependent claim on preclusion grounds based on the PTAB’s invalidation of the related...more
On September 28, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied all preliminary motions by Junior Party the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") and Senior Party...more
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents a party who unsuccessfully litigated an issue to a final decision in one proceeding from relitigating the same issue in future proceedings. In the patent...more
Usually in American courts, parties get one chance to litigate a single legal claim. Courts enforce that principle in a variety of ways – at the back end, through rules like claim and issue preclusion; and at the front end,...more
In an opinion related to its 2021 ruling that a decision in earlier inter partes reexaminations of related patents had a preclusive effect that collaterally estopped the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) from making new...more
SynQor, Inc. appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding un- patentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 as...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to a webinar, "Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions," on Thursday, February 17, 2022. In conjunction with the release of the firm's...more
On February 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion) was applicable in inter partes reexamination proceedings. The case is SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.,...more
In SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., Case No. 19-1704 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated the inter partes reexamination decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). As part of the decision,...more
All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right? So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more
SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION - Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A finding during inter partes reexamination that two references would not be combined...more
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions - In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory...more
269-1. Federal Circuit Confirms Amazon’s Customers are Protected from Lawsuit via the Kessler Doctrine, Despite the Previous Case being Voluntarily Dismissed with Prejudice. ...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit invoked the Kessler doctrine in ruling that a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement suit against Amazon barred the plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuits against Amazon and...more
In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC - Before Wallach, Bryson, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: The Kessler doctrine is not limited to cases...more
On Monday, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) heard oral argument (remotely) from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT) and Junior Party the University of...more
Samsung successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several of Papst’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437. Prior to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of the ’437 patent...more
A recent ruling from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) highlights the critical role that collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) can play in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In a final written...more
Addressing the applicability of issue preclusion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent owner’s arguments on appeal were precluded based on similar...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more