How shoiuld a judge decide on Collateral estoppel
in response to
by
Message: How shoiuld a judge decide on Collateral estoppel
The judge should realize, however, that if the claim construction order could not fulfill the minimum requirements for collateral estoppel,the order could never be used for collateral
estoppel purposes. . Without any possible collateral estoppel effects, there should not be a public interest in denying vacatur; courts should grant vacatur given any competing interest. Therefore,when deciding whether to grant vacatur, courts should consider whether the instant claim construction meets the minimum requirements for use as a basis for collateral estoppel.
estoppel purposes. . Without any possible collateral estoppel effects, there should not be a public interest in denying vacatur; courts should grant vacatur given any competing interest. Therefore,when deciding whether to grant vacatur, courts should consider whether the instant claim construction meets the minimum requirements for use as a basis for collateral estoppel.
Vol. VI The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review
But how should a judge decide if an order has met these minimum requirements? Ideally,a judge would look at the usual requirements for collateral estoppel and decide whether futureissues have the possibility of being estopped.156 Unfortunately, most of the requirements for
collateral estoppel are beyond the purview of the judge, since the “future issue” that may be estopped is not determined. Therefore, it is impossible to decide whether the “future issue” is identical, whether the “future issue” was actually litigated, or whether the“future issue” wasessential.157
The trial court could, however, consider two threshold issues. The first is largely academic: whether there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate. If the court, based on thefacts of the case, could determine that the losing party did not have a full and fair opportunity to
litigate any of the issues embodied in the claim construction order, it would be obvious that the
order could never fulfill the requirements for collateral estoppel, and approving a vacatur of theclaim construction order should look more appealing. Still, as a threshold issue, this should be easily met.
The second issue requires a real decision: whether the order should be considered a final judgment. Similar to the last issue, if the order was not final for collateral estoppel purposes(that is, if the judge believed that it was not practically immune to reversal or amendment), the judgment could never have collateral estoppel effect, and the approval of vacatur would look more appealing. Ideally, every judge would simply examine the order and decide whether theorder is practically immune to reversal or amendment.158 Because the same judge actually wrotethe order, he or she should know whether the claim construction order, while technically alwaysopen to amendment, was “tentative in any real sense.”159 When determining threshold collateral
estoppel effects, the issuing judge has a much easier time deciding “practical finality” than thejudge in the future action. Of course, circuit interpretation will take a defining role in thedetermination. If the judge sits in the Fifth Circuit, where “flexible finality” is not recognized, a
possibility of future collateral estoppel should never exist.
In sum, when deciding whether to approve a settlement order contingent on vacatur of a
claim construction ruling, a district court judge should first gauge the “flexible finality” and “full
and fair opportunity to litigate” prongs in order to decide whether the minimum threshold for
But how should a judge decide if an order has met these minimum requirements? Ideally,a judge would look at the usual requirements for collateral estoppel and decide whether futureissues have the possibility of being estopped.156 Unfortunately, most of the requirements for
collateral estoppel are beyond the purview of the judge, since the “future issue” that may be estopped is not determined. Therefore, it is impossible to decide whether the “future issue” is identical, whether the “future issue” was actually litigated, or whether the“future issue” wasessential.157
The trial court could, however, consider two threshold issues. The first is largely academic: whether there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate. If the court, based on thefacts of the case, could determine that the losing party did not have a full and fair opportunity to
litigate any of the issues embodied in the claim construction order, it would be obvious that the
order could never fulfill the requirements for collateral estoppel, and approving a vacatur of theclaim construction order should look more appealing. Still, as a threshold issue, this should be easily met.
The second issue requires a real decision: whether the order should be considered a final judgment. Similar to the last issue, if the order was not final for collateral estoppel purposes(that is, if the judge believed that it was not practically immune to reversal or amendment), the judgment could never have collateral estoppel effect, and the approval of vacatur would look more appealing. Ideally, every judge would simply examine the order and decide whether theorder is practically immune to reversal or amendment.158 Because the same judge actually wrotethe order, he or she should know whether the claim construction order, while technically alwaysopen to amendment, was “tentative in any real sense.”159 When determining threshold collateral
estoppel effects, the issuing judge has a much easier time deciding “practical finality” than thejudge in the future action. Of course, circuit interpretation will take a defining role in thedetermination. If the judge sits in the Fifth Circuit, where “flexible finality” is not recognized, a
possibility of future collateral estoppel should never exist.
In sum, when deciding whether to approve a settlement order contingent on vacatur of a
claim construction ruling, a district court judge should first gauge the “flexible finality” and “full
and fair opportunity to litigate” prongs in order to decide whether the minimum threshold for
future collateral estoppel has been met, and then weigh the loss of future collateral estoppel
effects against competing justifications, such as the loss of settlement.
effects against competing justifications, such as the loss of settlement.
Columbia law review
13 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
7
Jul 25, 2013 09:19AM
3
Jul 25, 2013 09:30AM
5
Jul 25, 2013 09:41AM
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply