No Collateral Estoppel As To A Reasonable Royalty Rate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.06
In Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp. (No. 05-1149; January 24, 2006), the Federal Circuit affirms the district court's ruling that the reasonable royalty rate determined in a prior litigation does not have collateral estoppel effects in a subsequent litigation. Applied Medical obtained a patent covering a trocar device which serves as an access port into the abdomen during laparoscopic surgery. It sued U.S. Surgical in a prior litigation alleging that the latter's Versaport I product infringes the patent. In that litigation, the district court found that U.S. Surgical had infringed, and awarded damages including a reasonable royalty at a 7 percent rate.
Subsequently, U.S. Surgical redesigned its product and came out with the Versaport II. Applied Medical again sued U.S. Surgical in the same litigation alleging that its Versaport II product also infringes the same patent. The district court found liability on the part of U.S. Surgical and awarded damages including reasonable royalty. U.S. Surgical argued that the royalty rate of 7 percent determined in the prior litigation applies to the instant litigation under collateral estoppel. The district court disagreed.
Affirming the lower court's ruling, the Federal Circuit specifies that collateral estoppel is appropriate only if (1) the issue to be decided is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. The first requirement was found not to be met because the reasonable royalty rate in the instant litigation is not identical to the one decided in the first litigation. Moreover, a reasonable royalty determination must relate to the time infringement occurred. Since the infringement of the instant litigation occurred at a later time than the infringement of the prior litigation, the prior reasonable royalty rate is not applicable.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
