As a community service, an educational series by the

IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

Copyright 2010 The IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Index of Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

HOLDING: (1) There is collateral estoppel unless the patentee shows no full and fair opportunity to litigated. (2) This will primarily occur when in the prior case (i) the court wholly failed to grasp the technical subject matter and issues in suit and/or (ii) without fault of the patentee, the patentee was deprived of crucial evidence. 3) There is no automatic formula and decision rests on the trial courts' sense of justice. (4) Procedurally, collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense plead under F.R.C.P. 8 (c) and such pleading gives the opposing party notice to argue why the imposition of an estoppel would be inappropriate.

BLONDER- TONGUE v. UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, (402 U.S. 313) May 3, 1971

 

FACTS: Patentee brought several separate infringement suits against different infringers. After its patent was held invalid in one case, patentee persisted in a separate suit against another infringer. This infringer contended the suit was barred by the holding of invalidity.

Tour of US Supreme Court Patent Cases from 1961 to 1999

***

A Fast and Easy Way to Learn the High Points of Patent Law and Related Anti-trust Law

Community Service and

Pro Bono

In addition to this education series, Mr. Hoffenberg gives of his time to benefit the community and contribute to the quality justice in the State of California. For many years, he served as a volunteer pro tem in the Municipal Court in traffic, landlord-tenant, small claims and short cause matters. Currently, Mr. Hoffenberg serves as a volunteer arbitrator for the Dispute Resolution Service in attorney-client fee disputes and as a quasi-volunteer mediator in the Court of Appeals.