Filewrapper®

Category: Claim and issue preclusion


Geographical Scope of Permanent Injunctions Challenged
June 17, 2015
Post by Blog Staff
  Federal trademark rights are generally enforceable throughout the United States.  However, confusion can arise where contrary decisions have been made by district courts in different geographical regions relating to the same mark. The Fourth Circuit's March decision in Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v. Von Dreble Corp, an appeal from the Eastern District of North Carol.......
Read More


New and Useful - April 23, 2013
April 23, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
· InK-Tech Telecoms v. Time Warner Cable, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the standard for evaluating the adequacy of complaints alleging direct patent infringement remains Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Form 18"). K-Tech filed separate complaints against Direct TV and Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the same day, alleging infringeme.......
Read More


Second Circuit: If you want a court to order the USPTO, ask in your pleadings, not after you win
September 25, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court's decision in a trademark case not to enter an order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119. § 1119 permits a court to enter an order regarding registrability and cancellation of marks at the USPTO. The prevailing defendant asked the district court to order the USPTO to dismiss a related cancellation proceeding. The party had not requested.......
Read More


Today's lesson for litigators: make sure you present all your arguments to the district court
August 21, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that two patents were invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The inventor filed a declaration during prosecution that the invention was reduced to practice before the critical date of the patents, and thereafter sold the claimed method, also before the critical date. The post-reduction to practice sales could n.......
Read More


When exclusion order based on multiple patents, failure to appeal under each may render appeal moot
August 06, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States International Trade Commission's finding of infringement and validity. The claims were brought under three patents that all claimed priority to a common parent application, and thus would ordinarily all expire on the same day. However, one of the three patents was subject to a 108 day term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). The f.......
Read More


Reverse doctrine of equivalents still a losing argument at the Federal Circuit
July 11, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of patent validity and patent infringement. The Federal Circuit found no error in the district court's holding that the reverse doctrine of equivalents was inapplicable and that claim preclusion prohibited the defendant from raising other validity challenges. Specifically, the defendant did not establish a prima facie case .......
Read More


No claim preclusion unless second accused product essentially the same as product in first suit
May 14, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a Tuesday decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court finding that a patent infringement suit was barred by claim preclusion. At issue was whether a claim for patent infringement was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion when that claim could have been brought in a prior case. The patentee sued for infringement on the basis of one product, and during that lawsuit, learned of a second prod.......
Read More


Hybrid vehicle patent not infringed; invalidity issues need not be reached on appeal from ITC
May 12, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In an appeal from the International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission's determination of noninfringement of a patent. The court, however, did not consider the ITC's finding of nonenablement on appeal. While in the context of a district court case a counterclaim for invalidity is not mooted by a finding of noninfringement, the court held that because invalidity can only be rai.......
Read More


Party defaulting before district court and enjoined cannot attack registration via cancellation
April 17, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit held that a party against whom a default judgment was entered in a trademark infringement case before a district court cannot thereafter petition to cancel the registration at issue before the TTAB. The TTAB held the claim barred by res judicata. The court held that res judicata did not apply, because an invalidity counterclaim in the district court was not compulsor.......
Read More


Fourth Circuit: Claim preclusion prevents new determination of actual damages against licensees
October 18, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
Yesterday, the Fourth Circuit decided another copyright infringement case based on use of the logo for the Baltimore Ravens football team. The court had previously affirmed two cases involving the same logo, where copyright infringement was found but no damages were issued. In this case, several hundred licensees were sued for using the infringing logo.The court again affirmed there was infringement of the plain.......
Read More


Infringement and royalty rate affirmed; dismissal of willful infringement claim reversed
September 06, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in part a district court's grant of summary judgment of infringement of a patent, finding that the claims were properly held to include measuring devices that either directly or indirectly compare two signals to determine the proper measurement. The court reversed-in part the district court's damages award. The district court properly determined the rea.......
Read More


USPTO not bound by district court claim construction on reexamination; obviousness affirmed
August 22, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit today addressed claim construction and obviousness in the context of a reexamination appeal. The patentee argued that the USPTO was bound, in reexamination, to apply the claim construction given the patents by a district court when the patents were in litigation before reexamination. The court found that because the USPTO was not a party to that litigation, issue preclusion could not apply,.......
Read More


Back to the Future: trade dress found functional in 1985 still functional in 2007
February 27, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit once again rejected Bose Corporation's application to register a speaker design as a trademark. The court had earlier affirmed a finding of functionality by the USPTO, and because there were no changed circumstances since that decision, the court once again affirmed the same finding based on the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion). More details of the case after the jump. Bose sta.......
Read More


Appeals Court holds Transclean Corporation to its stated position
January 18, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in Transclean v. Jiffy Lube that Transclean should be bound by its repeated statements proffered during the course of litigation and not be allowed to take a contrary position during a second phase of litigation. Transclean is the sole licensee of U.S. Patent No. 5,318,080 that is directed to an apparatus for changing automatic transmission fluid........
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.