Cardpool appealed the ruling of the district court denying the parties’ joint motion to vacate the district court’s judgment of patent invalidity insofar as the judgment was with prejudice.  The reasons why the parties sought to vacate the judgment were that: (1) all of Cardpool’s claims (which were previously held to be unpatentable under Section 101) were replaced on reexamination with new claims; and (2) Plastic Jungle was no longer conducting the accused infringing activities.  The court affirmed the district court’s decision because the denial is within the district court’s discretion and also because the premise of the motion is both speculative and inaccurate: the district court’s final judgment as to an original group of claims does not automatically render that judgment res judicata as to new claims granted upon reexamination.

Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., Case No. 2014-1562 (April 5, 2016); Opinion by: Newman, joined by Reyna and Wallach; Appealed From: United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Alsup, J. Read the full opinion here.

Jump to Page