Main Menu

In a prior proceeding, the D. Colo. construed a particular claim term that appeared in claims 1 and 19 of the ‘774 patent.  In the present action, the plaintiff asserted reexamined claim 33 of the same ‘774 patent and asserted claims 2 and 5 of the unrelated ‘108 patent, all of which contained the same limitation construed in the prior action.   The court held that: (1) the patentee was collaterally estopped from seeking a construction of a claim term different than that given by the Colorado court for the same limitation in the same patent (prior to reexamination) because the claim construction issues in the cases were identical; but (2) the patentee was not collaterally estopped from seeking a different construction with respect to the same term in the ‘108 patent claims, because that patent, being unrelated to the ‘774 patent, has a different specification and prosecution history and therefore presents a new issue of claim construction. 

E.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., Case No. 2014-1019; (November 19, 2014); Opinion By:  Moore, joined by O’Malley and Reyna; Appealed From:  Southern District of California, Sabraw, J. Click here to read the court's full opinion.

If you have questions or need more information, please contact info@mckoolsmith.com.

Back to Page