I must have missed this one earlier by Charles -Yahoo message board?
Here we go folks! In this latest letter to HDVY shareholders from Bill Quirk, Bill cites a legal article which has direct implication on HDC's lawsuit:
Dear HDC Shareholders,
This paragraph from a legal article says: when PTAB issues a final written decision (FWD) affirming the patentability of a patent that has previously been challenged i.e. precisely HDC’s situation, Intel is precluded from raising the issue in a trial. Intel appealed to PTAB twice and lost twice on all challenges to HDC’s patents. I strongly suspect Judge Albright will soon make three decisions favorable to HDC: 1) deny Intel’s request to start HDC’s infringement lawsuit all over again, 2) schedule the jury trial, and 3) in light of the “doctrine of issue preclusion", dismiss Intel’s effort to raise the “patentability” issue in court. Intel raised this issue as a (bogus) legal tactic because they said no one can infringe on a patent that is “not patentable”.
Bill
Below is the article:
PTAB Decisions & Issue Preclusion By Scott McKeown on July 28, 2021
images_content_USPTO-deadline
What is “Materially Identical?”
The doctrine of issue preclusion can prevent an issue previously litigated at the PTAB from being re-litigated in a later proceeding, such as in the district court. In order for issue preclusion to apply, a “materially identical” issue must have been “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment,” where the determination was “essential to the judgment.” See Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Thus, once appeals have been exhausted, the determinations in a FWD from the PTAB may have preclusive effect in future actions, even on related patents so long as they raise “materially identical” issues.
