Category Archives: Issue Preclusion

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

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

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

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.

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)

Docket No. 2016-1085, -1160 REYNA, WALLACH, CHEN March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of collateral estoppel and obviousness for asserted claims affirmed but reversed as to the unasserted claims of the Allergan’s ‘953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.

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.

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