The long - term impact of this statement will need to observed, to see whether PTAB rulings on factual issues are given
preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation.
Depending on what these provisions say, they are known as
preclusive clauses, finality clauses, privative clauses or exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
District Court's Fee Entitlement Ruling Was
Preclusive On Fees, But Not Necessarily On Routine Costs Recovery.
The Supreme Court noted that, in many situations, differences between administrative and federal court proceedings will
prevent preclusive effect.
and have absolutly no precedential,
preclusive, or binding effect on any anti-gay case in the future.
Finally, the New Mexico court held that a subsequent change in law does not limit
the preclusive effect of a prior decision on the merits.
The possibility of
a preclusive effect raises strategic concerns in both trademark and patent matters, since the Court's reasoning potentially applies equally to Patent Trial and Appeal Board determinations.
Therefore, the district court held that because the claim construction standards are different between the district court and the PTAB, B&B Hardware did not apply to create
a preclusive effect.
In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have
preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation involving the identical issue.
In other cases, however, judicial review may be available even though
a preclusive clause tries to prevent such review.
Although the decision does not directly address AIA trials, the procedural differences between inter partes review proceedings and federal court litigation may impact
the preclusive effect of PTAB factual findings.
In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., [14] which considered
the preclusive effect of fact finding in proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Court rejected categorical rules governing the doctrine of issue preclusion based on administrative agency rulings.
The court, tackling choice of law rules to determine applicable state law to analyze
the preclusive effect of the prior court decisions, embraced the notion that «nationwide uniformity in the substance of the matter is better served by having the same - preclusive rule (the state rule) apply whether the dismissal ordered by a state or a federal court... [Thus, the court adopts] the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits.»)
While precedent has previously addressed the effect of a prior district court claim construction on a subsequent PTO proceeding, never before has a final claim construction by this court been held not to be
preclusive.
«the party seeking review here might prevail [in the state court] on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be
preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action...»
The bitcoin mining firm KnCMiner based in Sweden is declaring itself bankrupt in
a preclusive step to save its revenues.
Phrases with «preclusive»