53 F. Supp. 3d 778
D. Del.2014Background
- Evonik sues Materia for patent infringement involving Evonik's ’145 and ’528 patents on NHC-catalyzed olefin metathesis.
- Interference proceeding (’364/’365) previously determined Evonik’s German priority date and certain § 112 patentability issues.
- Patents at issue cover catalysts and processes for preparing olefins; Interference involved broader vs. narrower claim scope.
- Evonik moves for partial summary judgment seeking issue and claim preclusion to bar Materia’s re-litigation of priority and validity.
- Court assesses whether Board (USPTO BPAI) findings have preclusive effect under collateral estoppel and res judicata standards.
- Markman opinion interpreted NHC scope broadly; post-Interference filings expanded claim scope for the ’145 and ’528 patents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether priority of invention is precluded | Priority decided in Interference should be binding. | Issues differ in scope and standard; not identical. | Not precluded; priority issue not identical. |
| Whether § 112 validity (written description and enablement) is precluded | Board decisions preclude § 112 validity challenges. | Different claim scope requires separate validity analysis. | Not precluded; § 112 validity not identical. |
| Whether § 102/§ 103 validity challenges are precluded as a single issue | Broad prior art challenges precluded as same validity issue. | New § 102/103 theories arise post-Interference; could be precluded only as single issue. | Precluded; § 102 and § 103 claims barred as single validity issue. |
| Whether claim preclusion bars Materia from relitigating priority | Interference final judgment and privity with Grubbs control. | Different cause of action; transactional fact test applies. | Not barred; claim preclusion not satisfied for priority. |
| Whether claim preclusion bars Materia from relitigating § 112 validity | Interference ruling defeats later § 112 validity challenges. | Different claims/scope; not identical cause of action. | Not barred; claim preclusion not satisfied for § 112 validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Innovative Scuba Concepts, Inc. v. Feder Indus., Inc., 26 F.3d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (priority depends on underlying factual determinations)
- In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (priority antedating in foreign filing contexts)
- Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (Supreme Court 1971) (collateral estoppel applies to patent validity)
- Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (issue preclusion not limited to identical patent language)
- AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Watson Labs., Inc. (NV), 905 F.Supp.2d 596 (D. Del. 2012) (validity theories may be precluded as a single issue)
- Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (validity as a single issue for preclusion purposes)
- Hart Steel Co. v. R.R. Supply Co., 244 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court 1917) (patent infringement cases subject to claim preclusion)