SP...what Handal need to state, was stated....it's all down in writing...including..."e.Digital argues issue preclusion does not apply because the claim construction issues adjudicated in Pentax are not identical to those presented here."

The judge conditioned on these issues:

"The term "issue preclusion" encompasses the doctrine once known as "collateral estoppel."Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 n.5 (2008). "Issue preclusion ... bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment ... ." Id. at 893 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Issue preclusion, of course, is not unique to patent cases. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical nc., 713 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit is "guided by the precedent of the regional circuit. However, for any aspects that may have special or unique application to patent cases, Federal Circuit precedent is applicable." Id.

In the Ninth Circuit, issue preclusion applies when (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.

Paulo v. Holder, 669 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks, citation and brackets omitted). It is undisputed the third element of issue preclusion is met here as the party against whom preclusive effect is sought, e.Digital, was a party in Pentax. However, the first and second elements of issue preclusion are disputed, and they are addressed in turn.

An intervening reexamination does not terminate the preclusive effect of a prior judgment when the amended or added claims are not material to the issues presented in the subsequent lawsuit."

====================

If you review the folowing, is the judge following the Ninth Circuit condition 1 ?

The judge contends: "The term "issue preclusion" encompasses the doctrine once known as "collateral estoppel..."bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment"

e.Digital contendes:..."e.Digital argues issue preclusion does not apply because the claim construction issues adjudicated in Pentax are not identical to those presented here."

In the Ninth Circuit, issue preclusion applies when (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated;

As I read the judges considerations, I do not read his consideration of not identical or identical.

Thing is, the meaning of "flash memory module which operates as sole memory of the received processed sound electrical signals" will come to a new meaning in a claims construction proceeding because of the re-exam....the defendants know it and the judge knows it.

doni