Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]
Direct estoppel and collateral estoppel are part of the larger doctrine of issue preclusion. [2] Issue preclusion means that a party cannot litigate the same issue in a subsequent action. [3] Issue preclusion means that a party in a previous proceeding cannot litigate an identical issue that was adjudicated and had the judgment as an integral ...
Issue preclusion; Likelihood of confusion Majority: Alito: Lanham Act: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision on an issue triggers issue preclusion for a district court's judgment when the district court decides an issue overlapping with the TTAB's analysis of a registration application, and the Lanham Act does not bar such preclusive ...
The law relating to contractual estoppel (in English law) was summarised in Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 386: There is no reason in principle why parties to a contract should not agree that a certain state of affairs should form the basis for the transaction, whether it be the case or not.
The district and appellate courts held that Taylor was precluded from litigating the issue because he had been "virtually represented" in the prior case. [3] Because Taylor and Herrick were seeking the same documents and were in fact trying to restore the same airplane, reasoned the lower courts, they were attempting to relitigate the issue.
NVIDIA also argued issue preclusion also applies to the Barth/Ware patents because Rambus had a policy of regularly destroying documents related to any patent prosecution. [ 12 ] However, the Court found it premature to rule on the preclusive effect of either Judge Robinson's or Judge Whyte's decisions, and that a stay of all proceedings would ...
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
Blonder-Tongue then appealed to the Supreme Court. Under prior law, a patentee was entitled to sue an alleged infringer, even though a different court had ruled the patent invalid: The second court was free to decide the second case on the basis of the evidence before it, irrespective of the first court's ruling, according to Triplett v.