SHARE

November 10, 2022

Don't Stand for It—Collateral Estoppel and Standing

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

In a series of related cases, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two decisions from the US District Court for the District of Delaware regarding collateral estoppel on standing issues and reversed a decision from the US District Court for the Northern District of California regarding the effect of license termination on standing. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-1498 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes, JJ.); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 21-1555 & Uniloc LLC v. Blackboard Inc., Case No. 21-1795 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes, JJ.)

These actions arose out of a series of patent suits filed by various Uniloc entities against tech companies in the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware involving several different patents. The Eastern District of Texas case against Google was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Western District of Texas case against Blackboard was transferred to the District of Delaware. All three cases were dismissed for lack of standing due to a prior license agreement.

In 2014, a Uniloc entity entered into a Revenue Sharing and Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement with Fortress regarding a loan Fortress made to Uniloc. Under the terms of this agreement, if Uniloc defaulted, Fortress would receive a royalty-free license with the ability to sublicense. Uniloc defaulted in March 2017. In May 2018, Uniloc and Fortress entered into a Payoff and Termination Agreement, which explicitly terminated the patent licenses.

Uniloc sued several companies, including Motorola, Blackboard and Apple, in the period between the default and the Termination Agreement. In the Apple case, the district court found Uniloc lacked standing because it had granted a royalty-free license with the ability to sublicense to Fortress. The cases involving Motorola and Blackboard were subsequently dismissed for lack of standing. Uniloc appealed the decision in the Apple case but later settled with Apple. The settlement did not address vacatur of the district court decision. When Uniloc appealed the Motorola and Blackboard decisions, Motorola and Blackboard raised collateral estoppel. Given the virtually identical factual circumstances, the Federal Circuit held that collateral estoppel applied and that Uniloc could not relitigate the standing issues.

Unlike the cases involving Motorola and Blackboard, Uniloc filed the action against Google after it entered into the Termination Agreement with Fortress. At the district court, Google argued that Uniloc lacked standing because the Termination Agreement could not terminate the irrevocable license provision and that as a consequence of the grant under the Termination Agreement Uniloc lacked standing. Applying New York law (as the law governing the contract), the district court held that the Termination Agreement could not terminate the irrevocable license and therefore dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Federal Circuit, reviewing the issue of law de novo, held that "irrevocable" referred to whether Uniloc could unilaterally terminate an agreement, and not to whether the parties could mutually agree to terminate the agreement. The Federal Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case.

Based on the limited issues before the court, Judge Dyk's opinions did not reach the issue of whether Uniloc's license to Fortress would have deprived Uniloc of standing. Judge Lourie, writing as an additional viewpoint in the Motorola and Blackboard decisions, affirmatively stated that Uniloc's sublicense did not deprive it of standing but that collateral estoppel prevented the suit from going forward.

Practice Note: In drafting settlement agreements where there have been adverse final decisions by courts, consider whether to seek vacatur of those decisions. Be aware, however, that courts may decline a request for vacatur, notwithstanding the parties' wishes. Additionally, under New York Law, an "irrevocable" license can still be terminated by mutual agreement.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Merck Fosters Healthcare Of The Future

By McDermott Will & Emery attorneys McDermott Will & Emery December 02 , 2022

Artificial intelligence and machine learning have led a digital transformation in healthcare, expanding providers’ resources and improving the lives of people around the world.

A Tsunami of Lawsuits Is Expected to Slam Institutions in the Wake of New York Adult Survivors Act

By Greer Griffith McDermott Will & Emery December 01 , 2022

A new revival window opened on Thanksgiving Day for filing sexual assault and abuse lawsuits that would otherwise be time-barred by the New York statute of limitations.

Tax Court Holds That Deficiency Petition 90-Day Time Limit Is Jurisdictional

By Andrew R. Roberson McDermott Will & Emery December 01 , 2022

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 30-day time limit to file a Collection Due Process (CDP) petition is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner).

More From Trademarks

Spoliation Series: Discovery Abuses Can Lead to Case-Ending Sanctions

By Kathryn C. Cole Greenberg Traurig December 01 , 2022

In Abbott Laboratories, et al., v Adelphia Supply USA (EDNY May 2, 2019), Plaintiffs filed a motion for case-ending sanctions against defendants H&H Wholesale Services, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman (for purposes of this blog, “Defendants”).

Construing the Construction: Federal Circuit Chips Away at IPR Win

By Thomas DaMario McDermott Will & Emery November 29 , 2022

Addressing claim construction issues in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness finding as to some claims but reversed and remanded an obviousness finding as to another claim because of a claim construction error.

Court Uncorks New Way to Serve Trademark Complaints

By Amol Parikh McDermott Will & Emery November 29 , 2022

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that Section 1051(e) of the Lanham Act permits a plaintiff in a district court case to serve a complaint against a foreign defendant via the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO).

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...