Sentences with phrase «preclusive effect»

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.

The Supreme Court noted that, in many situations, differences between administrative and federal court proceedings will prevent 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.

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.

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.»)