B. Administrative Estoppel

The Supreme Court has “long favored application of the common-law doctrines of collateral estoppel (as to issues) and res judicata (as to claims)” to final determinations made by administrative agencies.189 In Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Solimino, the Court stated:

Such repose is justified on the sound and obvious principle of judicial policy that a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently seeks to raise. To hold otherwise would, as a general matter, impose unjustifiably upon those who have already shouldered their burdens, and drain the resources of an adjudicatory system with disputes resisting resolution.190

Federal court decisions bind the ITC.191 For example, during one ITC investigation, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding no infringement of the patent holder’s patent.192 Before the Commission reviewed the decision, however, a district court ruled that one of the patents at issue in the ITC proceeding was invalid.193 The ITC consequently found the patent invalid based on collateral estoppel.194

But ITC determinations of patent issues are not given preclusive effect by federal courts.195 This position rests on two grounds. First, the Federal Circuit maintains that federal district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, and that the ITC’s authority under § 337 is limited to investigating unfair practices in import trade.196 Second, the legislative history for the Trade Act of 1974 states that ITC decisions are not entitled to preclusive effect.197 In the Senate Report, Congress stated:

[I]n patent-based cases, the Commission considers, for its own purposes under section 337, the status of imports with respect to the claims of U.S. patents. The Commission’s findings neither purport to be, nor can they be, regarded as binding interpretations of the U.S. patent laws in particular factual contexts. Therefore, it seems clear that any disposition of a Commission action by a Federal Court should not have a res judicata 198 or collateral estoppel effect in cases before such courts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911038/

191. See Young Eng’rs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 721 F.2d 1305, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to an ITC proceeding that follows a district court decision).