PTAB Strategies and Insights - December 2018: Precedential Opinion Says Rule 36 Creates Collateral Estoppel Despite Its Ambiguous Nature

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Contact

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Rule 36 is a single sentence affirmance. Yet to explain the impact of a Rule 36 decision on later filed cases, the Court needed to issue a 7-page precedential decision. In Virnetx v Apple the Court held Rule 36 creates collateral estoppel for everything decided below, in this case whether a document was a printed publication under the law.

With the continued disposition of a large percentage of appeals by Rule 36, both sides of the “v” need to be cognizant of the impact the lower tribunal’s words have on future cases.

If the lower tribunal failed to fully articulate its positions clearly or includes ambiguous language, their decision can haunt both parties when a Rule 36 decides their appeals. It might be worth a request for reconsideration or rehearing to have the lower tribunal clarify ambiguous positions.

For more discussion on Rule 36, please refer to our February newsletter on Rule 36 and our client’s cert petition and its related amicus brief.


Written by:

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide