直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Fed Circuit Rules that Voluntary Dismissal of Related Appeals Leads to Issue Preclusion

June 5, 2019

Authored and Edited by Marcus A.R. Childress; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that certain claims were unpatentable as obvious. In its obviousness decision, the Board adopted particular claim constructions, which were also adopted in several similar proceedings. For the related proceedings, Papst voluntarily dismissed the appeals, prior to oral argument, resulting in finality of the Board’s decision. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s decision finding the arguments presented on appeal were barred by issue preclusion. Because of overlapping claim constructions with the concluded proceedings, the Federal Circuit determined that issue preclusion prevented a different result in the instant case. Earlier Supreme Court precedent made clear that an administrative tribunal’s resolution of an issue making up only one part of an ultimate legal claim can, nonetheless, preclude the losing party from later contesting the resolution of that issue within a separate case. From that general rule of law, the Court determined that the “ruling was not just materially identical to the Board’s claim-construction ruling in this case; it also was essential to the Board’s ultimate determination.” Id. at 15. Apart from issue preclusion, the Court found substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the claims were obvious. 

Tags

Obviousness (35 USC § 103), patentability, preclusion

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Kara A. Specht
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6481
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2019 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. 

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

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

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP