Posts Tagged: "claim preclusion"

On Wednesday, April 4, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied VLSI’s motion to terminate Intel’s involvement in an inter partes review (IPR) of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759. In addition to Intel, OpenSky is also a petitioner in the IPR, which pertains to claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 of the ‘759 patent. VLSI argued that a previous March 2021 district court ruling that found Intel had not proven invalidity of claims 14, 17, 18, and 24 of the patent precluded the tech firm from continuing to pursue this IPR. However, Intel successfully made the case that claim preclusion does not apply thanks to the America Invents Act (AIA). Additionally, it argued that the IPR and district court proceedings do not involve the same accused product and have different standards of proof.

On September 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., authored by Circuit Judge Sharon Prost, affirming the District of Delaware’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint filed by Arendi under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to local rules on initial disclosures in Delaware, one of the most popular U.S. district courts for patent infringement litigation.

On September 17, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision that affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a decision by the District Court for the District of New Jersey, holding that trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) do not preclude infringement claims in federal district court. In 1969, David Beasley formed a band named “The Ebonys” in Camden, New Jersey. The Ebonys were one of many bands that helped create the “Philadelphia Sound” which incorporated elements of soul, funk, and disco. The Ebonys achieved some commercial success in the 1970s but failed to reach the notoriety of other groups. As the decades wore on, the Ebonys’ popularity faded, though Beasley alleges they performed continuously since their formation. In the mid-1990s William Howard joined the band, and in 1997, Beasley obtained a New Jersey state service mark for THE EBONYS. Relations between Howard and Beasley soured and the pair parted ways. Each artist believed themselves the owner of the Ebonys name, and in 2012, Howard obtained Registration No. 4,170,469 (the ‘469 mark) for THE EBONYS, as a federal trademark. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today ruled in In Re PersonalWeb Technologies, Inc. that a district court’s 2014 dismissal of a patent infringement suit brought by PersonalWeb against Amazon barred PersonalWeb’s new infringement actions against Amazon and its customers. The Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s finding that the lawsuits against Amazon and its customers—Patreon, Vox Media, Dictionary.com, Vice Media, Oath, Inc., Buzzfeed, Popsugar and Ziff Davis—were barred in part by a 1907 Supreme Court ruling, Kessler v. Eldred, which said that a losing patent holder cannot later assert the same patents against the winning party’s customers.

As predicted following oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that Marcel Fashion Groups, Inc. cannot preclude Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. from raising new defenses under federal preclusion principles, but left open the possibility that it may be appropriate to apply claim preclusion to defenses in certain circumstances. The opinion was authored by Justice Sotomayor. The Second Circuit decision was ultimately reversed and the case remanded, continuing the long battle between the two brands.

On the morning of Monday, January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc. The case asks the High Court to decide “whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.” While the case originally involved allegations of trademark infringement, oral arguments indicated that the Justices of the Supreme Court will issue a decision with far-reaching implications on the question of what constitutes a single cause of action.

In SimpleAir v. Google, The district court found claim preclusion applied because the patents at issue had the same title and specification as previously litigated patents, SimpleAir files a terminal disclaimer to overcome obviousness-type double patenting, and Simple Air could have included the newly asserted patents in its previous actions. However, the district court never compared the claims of the patent at issue to the claims of the previously litigated patents.

Google also argued that, if claim preclusion did not bar SimpleAir’s infringement claims, than the Kessler doctrine barred them. This doctrine, stemming from a 1907 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kessler v. Eldred, has been used to protect a party’s rights to continue a practice accused of infringement if an earlier judgment found that essentially the same activity did not infringe the patent. While the Federal Circuit has relied on the Kesler doctrine to bar patent assertion against similar activities or products found not to infringe, the doctrine has not been applied to bar a broader set of rights than would have been barred by claim preclusion.

Various Synopsys parties and EVE-USA, Inc. (collectively “Synopsys”) sued Mentor Graphics, seeking a declaration that Mentor’s ’376, ’531, and ’176 patents were invalid and not infringed. Mentor counterclaimed for willful infringement of those three patents, and also asserted infringement of two more (the ’526 and ’109 patents). The court consolidated the case with another involving a fourth patent owned by Mentor (the ’882 patent)… A jury does not have to further apportion lost profits to patented features of a larger product after applying the Panduit factors, which implicitly incorporate apportionment into the lost profit award. Claim preclusion applies when a claim was asserted, or could have been asserted, in a prior action. It does not bar allegations that did not exist at the time of the earlier action.