July 13, 2023
Authored and Edited by Matthew R. Ritter; Ryan V. McDonnell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Inguran, LLC V. ABS Global, Inc., No. 22-1385 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of Inguran’s induced infringement claims based on res judicata and it’s ruling on the scope of an ongoing royalty.
In 2014, ABS filed an antitrust lawsuit (“ABS I”) against Inguran, dba STGenetics, (“ST”). ST filed counterclaims alleging direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,206,987 (“the ’987 patent”). ABS stipulated to direct infringement and an ongoing royalty was ordered after trial. The district counter later clarified the royalty order. In 2017, ST filed a second patent infringement lawsuit (“ABS II”), which resulted in another ongoing royalty. In 2020, ST filed yet another patent infringement lawsuit (“ABS III”), alleging induced infringement of the ’987 patent and infringement of two other related patents. ABS moved to dismiss the induced infringement claims, arguing that they were precluded by the district court’s judgment in ABS I. The district court agreed, dismissing the induced infringement claims and holding that the ongoing royalty from ABS I could be reasonably interpreted to cover the third-party conduct identified in ABS III. ST appealed the district court’s determination regarding the finding of claim preclusion and the scope of the ongoing royalty.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the induced infringement claims in ABS III were not precluded because they were separate causes of action and were not based on the same transactional facts as the direct infringement claims presented in ABS I. In particular, the Court found no support in the record that ST had asserted or cited induced infringement against ABS in ABS I and that the induced-infringement claims centered on the direct infringement of third parties occurring after the ABS I trial. The Court also found that the plain language of the ongoing royalty and clarification in ABS I were limited to direct infringement by ABS and could not reasonably be interpreted to cover actions by third parties in an induced infringement claim.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.