UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BLONDER-TONGUE LABORATORIES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the patent owner was estopped from asserting patent validity due to a prior adjudication of invalidity.
Plaintiff patent owner appealed a judgment that estopped them from asserting patent validity based on a prior invalidity ruling. The prior ruling was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Obviousness (Patent Law) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment, on remand from the Supreme Court, that plaintiff patent owner is estopped, by a prior adjudication of invalidity, from asserting the validity of its patent in this action. The decision of the district court is reported,1 and sets forth the history of this litigation and the reasons, consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court,2 for sustaining the defense of collateral estoppel.
We adopt the opinion of the district court, adding the following comments:
On oral argument on appeal, plaintiff stressed its claim that although the courts which decided Winegard [University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard, 271 F. Supp. 412, aff’d 402 F. 2d 125] purported to employ Graham [Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545] standards in deciding the subject matter was obvious, they did so defectively. The defect was said to be reliance upon the proposition that the results achieved by Isbell, though unpredictable, were achieved by logical exploration within known principles. Review by the court which considers the plea of collateral estoppel of the reasoning of the court which made the prior adjudication would be inconsistent with the doctrine of collateral estoppel. There can be no question but that the Winegard courts did “grasp the technical subject matter and issues in suit.” Even if those courts erred in the reasoning challenged by plaintiff, we are confident that such error would not be a defect of the magnitude contemplated by the Supreme Court as a reason why the court in the second action should deny the effect of estoppel to the earlier judgment.
Recent decisions of other courts are consistent with the decision of the district court in this case.3
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
. University of Ill. Found, v. Blonder-Tongue Lab., Inc., 334 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.Ill., 1971).
. Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971).
. Bourns, Inc. et al. v. Allen Bradley Co., et al., No. 70 C 1992, N.D.Ill. (Feb. 7, 1972); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Architectural Art Mfg., Inc., 337 F.Supp. 853 (D.Kansas, 1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The United States, 496 F.2d 535 (Ct. Cl. 1974)
-
Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 474 F.2d 798 (4th Cir. 1973)
-
Blumcraft OF Pittsburgh v. Kawneer Co., Inc., 482 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1966)
- Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1971)
- Univ. OF Ill. Found. v. Winegard Co., 402 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1968)