Replies to post #35005 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[quilt]

It would seem Bungie is hanging their hat on Nestle USA V Steuban:


"Cases need not be identical for issues to be materially identical for
issue preclusion. See Nestle USA Inc. v. Steuben Food, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claim construction preclusive in different patent); Maxlinear, 880 F.3d at 1375-76 (FWD finding unpatentability based on prior art not asserted in subsequent IPR was preclusive in subsequent IPR). Because the RPI issues are identical here, issue preclusion bars Worlds from relitigating them.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal Circuit noted that neither party “pointed to any material difference between the two patents or their prosecution histories” that would give rise to different claim construction issues.

Further, “the two patents [] provide identical lexicography for the term ‘aseptic’ in their specifications.” In addition, the Federal Circuit emphasized that collateral estoppel is not limited to patent claims that are identical and that it is actually the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.

It seems that Bungie holding on with a death grip to the above...


Personally I would give alot to know what the thoughts are from Worlds or the attorneys on the Nestle Case and why they think it will be dismissed/disregarded in the final, there has to be a reason this was not dealt with more. I am positive i must be missing something here.


I do not trust the PTAB by itself, but... with the lights on and the curtains pulled back its a different story now.

As well it seems the CAFC tried to make sure the PTAB got the message to the PTAB that the PTAB better review the CAFC's newer rulings.

ALSO and more importantly they are requesting the PTAB TO provide the record with in depth reasoning this time on each issue, so that should this need to go back to the CAFC they will have (compared to last time) a more complete record from the PTAB for the CAFC to review and issue its FWD's

JMHO
Q

[tradetrak]

Thanks, Data. Your clarification is much appreciated. I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on Quilt's comments re: Bungie's hat hanging on: Nestle USA Inc. v. Steuben Food, Inc., which seems to get pretty much to the heart of my question as well