Of course, B&B Hardware makes clear that the determination whether issue
preclusion applies will be assessed by district courts on a case - by - case basis.
Not exact matches
As a general rule, claim
preclusion only
applies to the original parties to the lawsuit, or those very closely related.
Ann Jacobs is not closely related to either Jane or Dear Author, and so I'm a little foggy as to how claim
preclusion would
apply here.
Ultimately, it is unclear whether the different claim construction standards
applied will prove substantial enough to prevent issue
preclusion in later district court patent infringement actions.
Because the TTAB may not always consider actual marketplace usage, the Court found that «for a great many registration decisions issue
preclusion obviously will not
apply.»
In his dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed doubt that «Congress intended administrative
preclusion to
apply to TTAB findings of fact in a subsequent trademark infringement suit,» based on the history of administrative
preclusion and both the express language and «several features» of the Lanham Act, including that the Act confers limited authority on the TTAB and provides for judicial review of the Board's decisions.
This depends upon when a concept analogous to the principle of collateral estoppel (also known as «issue
preclusion») in civil cases, in which facts previously litigated can bind a party in a later lawsuit, with or without constitutional double jeopardy dimensions,
applies in criminal cases.
No equitable or due process exception to issue
preclusion is here asserted; thus
preclusion should
apply.
In other words,
preclusion would not
apply unless the stockholder in the first case had been empowered by either a court or the board to assert the corporation's claims.