Article September 22, 2021
No Collateral Estoppel Based on a Prior General Jury Verdict that Rested on Multiple Grounds
- Person title
United Access Technologies, LLC v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2015) (Newman, BRYSON, O'Malley) (D. Del.: Stark) (3 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit reverses district court's decision that collateral estoppel barred this suit based a previous judgment of noninfringement of the same asserted claims. In a prior suit, a jury returned a general noninfringement verdict against one defendant, which the district upheld on JMOL because there was substantial evidence that (1) the patent did not cover the defendant's use of a networking standard and (2) the defendant's system did not include a telephone, as the claims required. The patentee then filed a second suit against different defendants that used the same networking standard.
Collateral estoppel did not bar the second suit. It was unclear which of the two independent grounds the jury's decision in the prior suit was based upon—the decision could have been based strictly on the noninfringement argument unique to the prior defendant's system, not whether the patent covered the networking standard. Because neither ground supporting the jury's verdict was necessary to the verdict in the first suit, neither ground had preclusive effect. It did not matter that the prior JMOL ruling held that both grounds were supported by substantial evidence, because that ruling was simply a decision that either ground could have supported the verdict—not a decision that each ground constituted an independent basis for the verdict. This is different than a case in which it was clear that the prior tribunal had explicitly adopted and relied upon both independent grounds and the second court could apply estoppel confident that the same issue had been actually decided previously.
Authors: Brian J. Livedalen, Michael C. Tyler
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog December 24, 2014
Patent Owner Collaterally Estoppel from Arguing Claim Construction Differing from Another Court's Previous Construction of the Same Limitation of the Same...
Blog December 3, 2014
Challenge of PTAB's Authority at the District Court Amounts to Impermissible Collateral Attack
Blog February 21, 2014
180-Day Statute of Limitations Under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3) & (4) Applies to Final PTA Determinations, Although Time Between Allowance and Issuance Should...
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.