cgraut---Although in theory res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) apply in most countries, it’s pretty difficult to apply in practice. Res judicata must involve litigation between the very same parties and very same issues, etc. A defendant against whom a judgment has been rendered (ie., ZTE) will always try to show that THIS particular case involving THIS particular issue (ie., patent)
is somehow different in some meaningful way from a prior-litigated case and issue in another jurisdiction.
Cutting a litigant's legs off by way of res judicata is often difficult even within the same jurisdiction and same country, and even more so in different countries. What may be growing in the case of ZTE, however, is that the courts will take judicial notice of the way ZTE seems to be ethically challenged throughout the world. The latest denial involving ZTE is in respect to ZTE’s fifth (count em’) attempt to end, bypass, disregard, ignore, etc. the existing injunction in Brazil. In point of fact, ZTE disregards the normal rules of practice and procedure anyway, as it has continued selling the banned products in Brazil in spite of the existing injunction.
As we observed when ZTE was caught lying to the court in the US when it obtained its short-term injunction against Vringo, ZTE’s arrogant and unethical approach to the judicial system will someday come back to bite it. Maybe the Brazilian judicial will take umbrage at ZTE’s giving it the finger. jmo
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
