Take away from recent Collateral Estoppel Opinion
in response to
by
Message: Take away from recent Collateral Estoppel Opinion
Worthwhile CLEs Straight to Your Screen
e.Digital Corp. v. Pantech Wireless Inc.
District Court, Judge Moore, Precedential
e.Digital Corp. v. Pantech Wireless Inc.
November 20, 2014
Links to Opinion, Oral Argument
Substantive Issues:
•Collateral estoppel– Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000).
oReview – de novo
•Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) – Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
oReview – abuse of discretion
History:
•e.Digital brought suit in D. Colo., asserting claims in patent ‘774.The Colorado court construed claims in the ‘774 patent.
•The ‘774 patent was reexamined and reissued.
•e.Digital asserted different claims in the ‘774 patent and a new patent, patent ‘108, in S.D. Cal. against GoPro, Pantech, Futurewei, Huawei, and Apple
•Collateral estoppel
oThe S.D. Cal. district court adopted D. Colo.’s claim construction for the ‘774 patent to interpret a limitation found in both the ‘774 and the ‘108 patents
oThe ‘108 patent was not related to the ‘774 patent, but cited the ‘774 patent as prior art.
oThe previous ‘774 patent claim construction did not construe claim 33 of the ‘774 patent.
oS.D. Cal. found non-infringement based on collateral estoppel of claim construction for both patents.
•Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
oe.Digital and Huawei stipulated to final judgment of non-infringement for e.Digital to appeal the decision.
oe.Digital stipulated to non-final partial judgment of non-infringement with Pantech, GoPro, and Apple
oPantech, GoPro, and Apple moved to stay pending the Huawei appeal
oApple moved to convert the judgment to a final judgment.GoPro joined the motion.
oS.D. Cal. converted all partial judgments to final judgments.
Holdings:
•Affirmed – collateral estoppel can be applied to the ‘774 patent regarding claim construction because the claim language at issue had already been construed for claims with the same limitation in question.
•Reversed and remanded – collateral estoppel cannot be applied to the ‘108 patent because the ‘108 patent was not related to the ‘774 patent.
• Affirmed – no abuse of discretion occurred in converting a partial judgment of non-infringement to a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Takeaway:
Much like family passes at theme parks, claim construction from another case cannot be applied to non-family member patent claims for collateral estoppel.
17 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply