Sentences with phrase «preclusive effect in»

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.

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.

Justice Thomas also concluded that «the majority's application of administrative preclusion raises serious constitutional concerns,» because allowing an agency decision to have preclusive effect in a later proceeding before a federal court may violate Article III.

Not exact matches

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

The panel also questioned counsel on the preclusive effect a decision by either the PTAB or a district court could have over a proceeding involving the same patent in the other forum.

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 rulingIn 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 rulingin 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.»)