Category Archives: Issue Preclusion

Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion

Posted on May 24, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2018-1777 (IPR2016-01733) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 23, 2019 Brief summary: Papst’s appeal following IPR obviousness decision barred by issue preclusion, and Board claim construction … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Arcelormittal v. AK Steel Corporation

Posted on November 19, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2017-1637 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES Nov. 14, 2018 (sealed opinion issued Nov. 5, 2018) Brief summary: DC decision of SJ based on collateral estoppel to AK vacated and remanded due to new evidence that the accused products may have … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Worlds Inc. v. Bungie Inc.

Posted on September 10, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583 (IPR2015-01264, -01319, -01321) PROST, O’MALLEY, TARANTO September 7, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s IPR invalidation decisions vacated and remanded (“the Board should first address whether Worlds is estopped from arguing the real-party-in-interest issue” and “then reevaluate … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.

Posted on March 16, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1193 (IPR2015-00249) DYK, REYNA, CHEN March 13, 2018 Brief summary: Citing Omega Eng’g (FC 2003) holding “that the same construed meaning should generally attach to the same claim term in related patents”, the FC panel vacated and remanded … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC

Posted on March 15, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2738 LOURIE, REYNA, CHEN March 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of SimpleAir’s infringement complaint against Google as barred by claim preclusion vacated and remanded since the DC did not compare “the claims of the ‘838 and ‘048 … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC

Posted on January 30, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-1039 (IPR2015-00592) DYK, SCHALL, REYNA January 25, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that dependent claims were not shown to be unpatentable vacated and remanded “[s]ince the patentability of [independent] claims 1 and 17 was the sole basis for … Continue reading →

Posted in Collateral estoppel, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Financial Company et al.

Posted on March 23, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1077 PROST, WALLACH, CHEN March 7, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) affirmed under Fourth Circuit law and finding of ineligibility under under § 101 affirmed under the two-step Alice/Mayo “abstract idea” … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Patentability | Leave a comment

Allergan, Inc. and Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc. (Akorn, Hi-Tech Pharm., Apotex)

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953 patent (“Sandoz, Inc. has not … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Article III disputes, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Obviousness | Leave a comment

SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. Deca International Corp.

Posted on July 19, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1325, -1326 TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES July 15, 2016 Brief Summary: SkyHawke appeal of Board confirmation of its claims because “claim construction relied on…to reach that decision should be corrected” dismissed (no issue preclusion and cannot appeal reasoning supporting … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 13-352 Decided March 24, 2015 Brief Summary: “[I]ssue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts” but may also apply “where a single issue is before a … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue Preclusion, Trademarks, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment