University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLONDER-TONGUE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment, on remand from the Supreme Court, that *381 plaintiff patent owner is estopped, by a prior adjudication of invalidity, from asserting the validity of its patent in this action. The decision of the district court is reported, 1
and sets forth the history of this litigation and the reasons, consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court, 2
for sustaining the defense of collateral estoppel.
We adopt the opinion of the district court, adding the following comments:
On oral argument on appeal, plaintiff stressed its claim that although the courts which decided Winegard [University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard, 271 F. Supp. 412 , aff’d 402 F.2d 125 ] purported to employ Graham [Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 ] standards in deciding the subject matter was obvious, they did so defectively. The defect was said to be reliance upon the proposition that the results achieved by Isbell, though unpredictable, were achieved by logical exploration within known principles. Review by the court which considers the plea of collateral estoppel of the reasoning of the court which made the prior adjudication would be inconsistent with the doctrine of collateral estoppel. There can be no question but that the Winegard courts did “grasp the technical subject matter and issues in suit.” Even if those courts erred in the reasoning challenged by plaintiff, we are confident that such error would not be a defect of the magnitude contemplated by the Supreme Court as a reason why the court in the second action should deny the effect of estoppel to the earlier judgment.
Recent decisions of other courts are consistent with the decision of the district court in this case.
3
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
1
. University of Ill. Found, v. Blonder-Tongue Lab., Inc., 334 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.Ill., 1971).
2
. Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 , 91 S.Ct. 1434 , 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971).
3
. Bourns, Inc. et al. v. Allen Bradley Co., et al., No. 70 C 1992, N.D.Ill. (Feb. 7, 1972); Blumcraft of Pittsburgh v. Architectural Art Mfg., Inc., 337 F.Supp. 853 (D.Kansas, 1972).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals8
- Federal District Courts2
- Federal Specialty Courts4
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd. v. Martin-Marietta Corp.
- Kaiser Industries Corp. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
- Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., and Technograph Printed Electronics, Inc. v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
- Kaiser Industries Corporation, a Nevada Corporation v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
- State v. Goggin
- Arkla, Inc. v. United States
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.