1 / 18

Administrative Estoppel

Administrative Estoppel. May 28, 2015. Estoppel/Preclusion Generally. Elements of Collateral Estoppel / Res Judicata: A right, question, or fact in issue and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.

agalloway
Download Presentation

Administrative Estoppel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Administrative Estoppel May 28, 2015

  2. Estoppel/Preclusion Generally Elements of Collateral Estoppel / Res Judicata: A right, question, or fact in issue and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies. Montana v. United States (U.S. 1979) “res judicata” = “claim preclusion” “collateral estoppel” = “issue preclusion”

  3. Administrative Estoppel Generally “When an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.” U.S. v. Utah Constr. & Mining (U.S. 1966)

  4. B&B Hardware v. Hargis Indus. (US Mar 24) “So long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the uses adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” Potential for material difference between marketplace and application usages?

  5. Procedural Set-Up Patent Defendant Infringement

  6. Procedural Set-Up Patent Defendant Infringement Patent Reexam/IPR/PGR Petitioner or Requestor

  7. Procedural Set-Up Patent Defendant Infringement Patent Reexam/IPR/PGR Petitioner or Requestor RE CON CIP

  8. Statutory Petitioner Estoppel – IPR/PGR Petitioner barred from later challenging on grounds “raised or reasonably could have raised.” 35 USC 315, 325. Scope unclear. Legislative History: “Adding the modifier ‘reasonably’ ensures that could-have-raised estoppel extends only to that prior art which a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover.” Pending Legislation: Strikes “or reasonably could have raised” from PGR only. Innovation Act of 2015, PATENT Act of 2015

  9. Statutory Petitioner Estoppel – IPR/PGR No cases interpret yet. BUT: prior statute “could-have-raised” for inter partes reexamination. 35 USC 315(c) (2006). Acco Brands v. PC Guardian (ND Cal. 2008) Prior art = computer (no publication) Statute limits to printed publications Could not have been raised. No estoppel. FN: “The Court is uncomfortable … [and] not convinced that defendant could not, somehow, have gotten the … information to the PTO had it actually wanted to.” Scope of grounds “could” raise for IPR (102/103/printed) vs. PGR (all).

  10. Statutory Petitioner Estoppel – IPR/PGR expressio unis est exclusio alterius Callaway Golf v. Kappos (E.D. Va. 2011); IPRx (35 USC 317(b)) “Congress’s failure to include a more general collateral estoppel provision supports the conclusion that Callaway’s collateral estoppel has no statutory basis.” WABCO Holdings v. Bendix (DNJ 2010) “If Congress thought that a third-party requester in an ex parte reexamination would receive two bites of the apple …, then it could have estopped the party in the same way that it does in inter partes reexaminations. Congress chose not to.”

  11. Petitioner Estoppel – Material Difference? “To allow reconsideration of an interlocutory order based upon the subsequent decision of another adjudicative tribunal – which was driven by a different claim construction, different arguments by the parties, different evidence, and a different legal standard – would remove all considerations of finality and consistency by allowing parties to challenge a court's ruling whenever that party identifies, in hindsight, an improved legal argument.” Va. Innovation v. Samsung (E.D. Va. 2014)

  12. Patentee Estoppel (IPR/PGR) 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3) “A [patentee] is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: (i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim; or (ii) An amendment of a specification or of a drawing that was denied during the trial proceeding, but this provision does not apply to an application or patent that has a different written description.” Limits continuation practice.

  13. Patentee Estoppel (Interference) Two Forms? “by judgment” and “for failure to file a motion” (cf. waiver; procedural default). Biogen v. Japanese Foundation (FC May 7) 1993: X loses interference to Y DNA sequences encoding hFIF proteins 2009: interference declared, but judgment to Y because same subject matter DNA sequences encoding mature hFIF proteins 2013: Y wins again, affirmed by FC Precursor and mature hFIF proteins

  14. Patentee Estoppel (Interference) Biogen v. Japanese Foundation (FC May 7) “Estoppel by judgment”: not patentably distinct, despite: restriction requirement; Y had additional interferences with third parties with separate counts for protein and DNA; (X did not submit evidence at correct time) “Estoppel by failure to file motion,” see MPEP 2308.03, not reached by FC. X had tried, but failed, to add counts to the prior interferences. “Where the prior judgment . . . is not strictly res judicata . . . That judgment may nonetheless create an estoppel as to matters actually in issue or points controverted.” Stoudt (CCPA 1981)

  15. Fix Litigation By Going Back to PTO? ArcelorMittal (FC May 12) Only independent claim: steel sheet with “a very high mechanical resistance” 1. DCt: tensile strength > 1500 MPa. 2. Reissue filed 3. CAFC affirms claim construction. 4. Reissue: “wherein said mechanical resistance is in excess of 1000 MPa” in dependent claim. 5. DCt: Claims broadened in reissue = invalid. 6. CAFC affirms, claim construction was law-of-the-case. See also Anderson (FC 1998).

  16. Fix Litigation By Going Back to PTO? “In situations, where the issue decided in Court did not invalidate claims, but applies in one or more respects to the claims being reexamined, the doctrine of collateral estoppel may be applied in reexamination to resolve the issue. For example, where a finding that reference X meets a limitation of a claim was necessary to the final decision of the Court invalidation of claim 5, collateral estoppel would attach to the same limitation in claim 2, which was not invalidated (e.g., because claim 2 contained additional limitations not found in claim 5).” MPEP 2659.

  17. Timing Problems Stay of Litigation (separate topic) Prejudice, Simplification, Reduction of Burden Race to Judgment: Fresenius v. Baxter (FC 2013) 1. CAFC Affirms Not Invalid, Remand Damages 2. USPTO (Reexam): Invalid 3. DCt Enters Final Judgment 4. CAFC Affirms Reexam Invalid 5. Pending damages (on appeal) extinguished. IPR/PGR Estoppel – only effective on “final written decision” of PTAB.

  18. Administrative Estoppel May 28, 2015

More Related