Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Claim Preclusion
Because patent infringement is a strict liability offense, liability typically turns on the nature of the accused product. Courts addressing claim preclusion in patent cases thus tend to focus on the extent to which a newly accused product is the same as the previously adjudicated product. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that preclusion does not apply unless the newly accused product is “essentially the same” as a previously adjudicated product). Another key issue is the extent to which nonparties may also seek the benefit of a judgment of noninfringement. Logically, once a product has been adjudicated to be noninfringing in a suit against the manufacturer, the patentee should not be able to seek another bite at the apple through subsequent suits down the distribution chain of the same product. One problem with reaching this result through a traditional res judicata, or claim preclusion, analysis is that customers are not technically in privity with their manufacturer/supplier.
The manufacturer/customer privity hurdle in patent infringement suits can be overcome by application of the Kessler doctrine. This doctrine is based on the Supreme Court's seminal 1907 decision in Kessler v. Eldred, which held that a favorable adjudication of patent infringement claims against a manufacturer precludes suit against the manufacturer's customers based on the same products. The rationale given for the Kessler doctrine is that extending preclusive effect to the customers is necessary because, otherwise, the effect of the prior judgment favorable to the manufacturer “would be virtually destroyed.” MGA, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 827 F.2d 729, 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Kessler doctrine appears to be an exception to the requirement of strict privity for application of res judicata, and has been endorsed by the Federal Circuit as a product-based privity analogous to defensive application of collateral estoppel. See Id.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.