Federal Circuit Patent Updates - January/February 2015

View previous updates...

United States Technologies v. Centurytel Broadband Services (No. 2014-1347, 2/12/15) (Newman, Bryson, O'Malley)

February 12, 2015 9:30 AM

Bryson, J. Reversing judgment of collateral estoppel by a general jury verdict in a prior action. "It is well established that a general jury verdict can give rise to collateral estoppel only if it is clear that the jury necessarily decided a particular issue in the course of reaching its verdict. ... When there are several possible grounds on which a jury could have based its general verdict and the record does not make clear which ground the jury relied on, collateral estoppel does not attach to any of the possible theories." And "it was error to apply collateral estoppel to a general jury verdict that could have rested on multiple grounds, simply because the first court held, in its JMOL ruling, that the evidence would have been sufficient to support the jury's verdict on either theory of liability presented to it."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria's Secret (No. 2012-1649, 2/12/15) (Dyk, Taranto, Hughes)

February 12, 2015 3:20 PM

Dyk, J. reversing judgment of infringement because the asserted claims were invalid by reason of issue preclusion from a judgment in another case. "[I]ssue preclusion applies even though the precluding judgment ... comes into existence while the case as to which preclusion is sought (this case) is on appeal." Rejecting the contentions that the patentee did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the other case.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership (No. 2013-1640, 2/12/15) (Newman, Schall, Hughes)

February 12, 2015 12:20 PM

Newman, J. Affirming summary judgment of noninfringement. "Fenner argues that the[] purportedly limiting statements he made during prosecution do not limit the claims, arguing that the statements and the limitations discussed were not the basis for grant of the patent. However, the interested public has the right to rely on the inventor's statements made during prosecution, without attempting to decipher whether the examiner relied on them, or how much weight they were given."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Helferich Patent Licensing v. The New York Times (No. 2014-1196, 2/10/15) (Taranto, Bryson, Chen)

February 10, 2015 11:45 AM

Taranto, J. Reversing summary judgment of...