Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

88 Citing cases

  1. Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.

    5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that verdict of nonobviousness was not inconsistent with verdict of anticipation by prior public use, despite "legal homily" that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness

    Prior Decision is Legal Precedent Mr. Mendenhall argues first that Judge Hull's opinion must be admitted as evidence in a second trial under our case law holding that a prior adjudication that a patent is "valid" is entitled to "weight", citing Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson Son, Inc., 919 F.2d 720, 723, 16 USPQ2d 1923, 1926 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co. 713 F.2d 705, 711, 218 USPQ 969 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (hereinafter " Stevenson"). To be given "weight," per Mr. Mendenhall, the prior decision must be in evidence for the jury to consider.

  2. Morgan Adhesives Co. v. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc.

    574 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Ohio 1983)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing that in the absence of bad faith, courts are unwilling to discourage attorneys from "that vigorous representation of clients their Code of Professional Responsibility demands of them"

    " Campbell v. Spectrum Automation Co., 601 F.2d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 1979). Accord: White Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., 713 F.2d 788, 792 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Stevenson v. Sears Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Faulkner v. Baldwin Piano Organ Co., 561 F.2d 677, 685 (7th Cir. 1977) (cited with approval in White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., supra, 713 F.2d at 792). "However, an award is proper only where the district court had made specific findings that bring the case within the `exceptional' definition."

  3. Gammino v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.

    CIVIL NO. 10-2493 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    402 U.S. 313 (1971).Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1983).Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., et al. 402 U.S. 313, 342 n. 37 (1971).

  4. Medinol Ltd. v. Guidant Corp.

    412 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Finding a trialable issue of "whether one of ordinary skill in the art in 1994 would have been motivated to combine the [prior art] references to create the claimed invention"

    Def. Mem. at 11.Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 711 (Fed. Cir. 1983).See Def. 56.1 ¶ 211 (asserting that Guidant's arguments in this case regarding the motivation to combine Lau and Fischell were not before the Cordis jury).

  5. Scripps Clinc and Res. Fnd. v. Baxtr Travenl

    729 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Del. 1990)   Cited 5 times

    Collateral estoppel may be asserted even when the prior determination of invalidity is made on a motion for summary judgment rather than after a full-fledged trial. Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A court must treat the prior determination of invalidity as an estoppel unless the patentee demonstrates that it was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the patent in the prior action.

  6. JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC v. Lanier Parking Systems of Virginia, Inc.

    944 F. Supp. 2d 469 (E.D. Va. 2013)

    (1) whether the patentee was the plaintiff in the prior suit and chose to litigate at that time and place; (2) whether the patentee was prepared to litigate and to litigate to the finish against the defendant there involved; (3) if the issue is obviousness, whether the first validity determination purported to employ the standards announced in Graham v. John Deere Co.[, 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966) ] ...; (4) whether the prior case was one of those relatively rare instances where the courts wholly failed to grasp the technical subject matter and the issues in suit; and (5) whether without fault of his own the patentee was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation.Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed.Cir.1983)(citing Blonder–Tongue, 402 U.S. at 332–33, 91 S.Ct. 1434). This list is not exhaustive, and “[d]etermining whether a patentee has had a full and fair chance to litigate the validity of his patent in an earlier case is of necessity not a simple matter,” Blonder–Tongue, 402 U.S. at 333, 91 S.Ct. 1434.

  7. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Shanghai Meihao Elec.

    613 F. Supp. 2d 670 (D. Md. 2009)   Cited 15 times
    In Leviton Manufacturing Co. v. Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc., 613 F.Supp.2d 670 (D.Md.2009), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom.

    A finding that the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct in procuring the patent can be sufficient to make a case exceptional. See Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Beckman Instrum., Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 713 (Fed. Cir. 1983);Century Wrecker, 913 F. Supp. at 1292; Tenax, 22 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1268-69. There is a presumption, however, that patents issued by the PTO are valid and assertions of infringement are made in good faith.

  8. Aventis Cropscience N.V. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l., Inc.

    269 F. Supp. 2d 644 (M.D.N.C. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    [I]t is clear from the case law that has developed since Blonder-Tongue that an inappropriate inquiry is whether the prior finding of invalidity was correct; instead, the court is only to decide whether the patentee had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of his patent in the prior unsuccessful suit.Stevenson v. Sears. Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Moreover, even thoughBlonder-Tongue only examined whether a patentee had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in an action where the patent was ultimately determined to be invalid, because unenforceability is simply permanent invalidity, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals enunciated that the Blonder-Tongue reasoning is applicable to patents held unenforceable in a prior action.Gen. Electro Music, 19 F.3d at 1413.

  9. Tufamerica, Inc. v. Hammond

    99 Civ. 10369 (CSH) (S.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2002)   Cited 3 times

    For example, a company that has failed to prove that it owns a valid patent in a litigation against one alleged infringer may be precluded from suing other entities for patent infringement. See, e.g., Blonder — Tongue, 402 U.S. at 350; Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For issue preclusion to apply, the issues in the current proceedin'g ahd the prior proceeding must be identical, and the controlling facts or legal principles must not have changed significantly.

  10. In re Swanson

    540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 58 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the scope of an examiner's prior consideration of a reference is a question of fact

    Ethicon, 849 F.2d at n. 3 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Therefore, "a prior holding of validity is not necessarily inconsistent with a subsequent holding of invalidity," Stevenson v. Sears Roebuck Co., 713 F.2d 705, 710 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and is not binding on subsequent litigation or PTO reexaminations. See Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1429 n. 3 (rejecting the PTO's argument that it was bound by a court's decision upholding a patent's validity); Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, 5 F.3d 1557, 1569-70 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("A prior decision that a patent has previously survived an attack on its validity serves only to inform the district court. . . ."); cf.