| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| | *Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016) | | *Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016) |
| | *Cisco Sys. v. Capella Photonics, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230554 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020) | | *Cisco Sys. v. Capella Photonics, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230554 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020) |
| − | *Downey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 266 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2001)
| |
| | *eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) | | *eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) |
| | *Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (collateral estoppel does not apply with the subsequent litigation requires a higher burden of proof) | | *Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (collateral estoppel does not apply with the subsequent litigation requires a higher burden of proof) |
| Line 17: |
Line 16: |
| | *Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, 924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming ''XY'' as binding precedent) | | *Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, 924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming ''XY'' as binding precedent) |
| | *Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan GmbH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170790 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2019) | | *Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan GmbH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170790 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2019) |
| − | *Taylor Brands v. GB II Corp., 627 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
| |
| | *United States v. Stauffer Chemical, 464 U.S. 165 (1984) | | *United States v. Stauffer Chemical, 464 U.S. 165 (1984) |
| | *''[[XY v. Trans Ova Genetics]]'', 890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (often cited but misapplied precedent on collateral estoppel in patent cases) | | *''[[XY v. Trans Ova Genetics]]'', 890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (often cited but misapplied precedent on collateral estoppel in patent cases) |
| | | | |
| | [[category:Patent Law]] | | [[category:Patent Law]] |