June 6, 2018
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., the Federal Circuit applied collateral estoppel sua sponte following a related decision upholding the invalidity of one of XY’s asserted patents.
XY filed suit against Trans Ova for patent infringement, among other things, asserting six patents. Trans Ova counterclaimed alleging invalidity. The district court found that the asserted patent claims were valid, that Trans Ova willfully infringed the asserted claims, and that XY was entitled to damages in the form of an ongoing royalty.
In a separate case decided the same day, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating one of XY’s patents asserted against Trans Ova. The Court held that “an affirmance of an invalidity finding, whether from a district court or the Board, has a collateral estoppel effect on all pending or co-pending actions.” Thus, the Court determined that the issues on appeal related to this patent were mooted. For the remaining patents, the Court found that that the district court focused too heavily upon pre-verdict factors in determining the royalty rate and remanded to recalculate.
Judge Newman dissented stating that collateral estoppel should not be applied without opportunity to respond.
Want to learn more? Click here for additional commentary about this case from Finnegan’s “Last Month at the Federal Circuit” podcast series.
Copyright © 2018 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.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.