District Court's Markman Ruling Has No Preclusive Effect On PTO Reexam
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.24.07
The Federal Circuit, in In Re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., (No. 2006-1559, -1600, Aug. 22, 2007), affirms a Board's Reexamination decision that found that each of the claims of two related patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the prior art. The Court rejects the appellant's argument that the Board should have given preclusive effect to a district court's Markman order, which had construed the claims in their favor in a prior litigation. The Court holds that issue preclusion is not warranted because the PTO was not a party to the earlier litigation, and as a result, did not have a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate the claim construction issues.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
