Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 FEBRUARY 2017

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments - February 2017

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

The Federal Circuit will determine whether collateral estoppel can bar a party from asserting an infringement claim when, in previous litigation, a patent in the same family and covering the same product was held invalid.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Allergan v. Sandoz, No. 16-1085, Courtroom 201

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine whether collateral estoppel can bar a party from asserting an infringement claim when, in previous litigation between the parties, a patent in the same family and covering the same product was held invalid. Allergan argues that collateral estoppel should not apply in this case because the issue of the validity of the eyelash growth and eyelash darkness claims is not "identical." Sandoz argues that collateral estoppel should apply in this case because the two sets of claims are "substantially similar," thus the issue is "identical."

Intellectual Ventures II v. Ericsson, No. 16-1739, Courtroom 201

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from