{"id":749,"date":"2016-04-05T10:39:03","date_gmt":"2016-04-05T14:39:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=749"},"modified":"2016-04-06T08:41:29","modified_gmt":"2016-04-06T12:41:29","slug":"invalidity-determination-would-not-apply-to-reexamination-claims-that-did-not-exist-at-time-of-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=749","title":{"rendered":"Invalidity Determination Would Not Apply to Reexamination Claims That Did not Exist at Time of Judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc.<\/em>, [2014-1562] (April 5, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed\u00a0the district court\u2019s denial of vacatur, because the denial was\u00a0within the district court\u2019s discretion and also because the\u00a0premise of the motion was both speculative and inaccurate.<\/p>\n<p>The parties\u2019 jointly\u00a0requested vacatur was\u00a0that all of the Cardpool patent claims had been replaced\u00a0on reexamination, and that Plastic Jungle was no longer conducting the accused\u00a0infringing activities.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit, applying Ninth Circuit law, said that\u00a0a district court\u2019s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed\u00a0for abuse of discretion, and found that it was not an abuse of discretion to preserve its original decision, which was limited to the claims and grounds that existed at the time. \u00a0The Federal Circuit further found that the premise of the\u00a0motion was both speculative and inaccurate:\u00a0the district court\u2019s final judgment as to an original group\u00a0of claims does not automatically render that judgment <em>res\u00a0judicata<\/em> as to new claims granted upon reexamination. \u00a0The Federal Circuit distinguished Aspex, noting that for <em>res judicata<\/em> to apply,\u00a0it is necessary that the claim\u00a0either was asserted, or could have been asserted, in the\u00a0prior action. If the claim did not exist at the time of the<br \/>\nearlier action, it could not have been asserted in that\u00a0action and is not barred by <em>res judicata<\/em>. \u00a0A\u00a0prior judgment\u00a0cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which<br \/>\ndid not even then exist and which could not possibly have\u00a0been sued upon in the previous case. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0the issue of\u00a0validity of the reexamined claims remains to be addressed\u00a0in any future proceeding, and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion refusing to vacate the judgment as to the original claims.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., [2014-1562] (April 5, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed\u00a0the district court\u2019s denial of vacatur, because the denial was\u00a0within the district court\u2019s discretion and also because the\u00a0premise of the motion was both speculative and inaccurate. &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=749\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=749"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":752,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749\/revisions\/752"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}