1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Defendants Win Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Issue Preclusion, Claim Preclusion, and the Kessler Doctrine

May 29, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The defendants in this case include AT&T and Verizon (the “carrier defendants”), and LG and Pantech (the “manufacturer defendants”). All defendants argued on summary judgment that issue preclusion bars Adaptix from arguing that defendants directly infringe the method claims of the ’212 patent by (1) selling LTE devices or (2) by controlling the use their respective customers’ LTE devices. The defendants argued that these issues were already litigated in the California cases. Judge Craven agreed and recommended that issue preclusion bar Adaptix from making these arguments.

The carrier defendants also asserted that Adaptix’s claims are independently barred by claim preclusion and the Kessler Doctrine. Defendants argued Adaptix should not be able to make the same argument that the accused 4G LTE devices, which are “essentially the same” as the devices at issue in the California cases, infringe the same patents based on the same LTE industry standard. Adaptix argued that the causes of action are different because the California actions involved Apple and HTC devices, while the present case involves LG and Pantech products. Judge Craven reasoned that both cases involve the same patent and that Adaptix’s infringement theory based on the LTE industry standard is the same in both sets of cases. Judge Craven explained that although the accused devices do not completely overlap, based on Adaptix’s infringement contentions, the accused devices are materially identical to those in the California case. The court also noted that any causes of action that arose after Judge Grewal’s decision are also barred by claim preclusion.

Judge Craven likewise found that Adaptix’s claims against the carrier defendants were barred by the Kessler doctrine because the defendants had already obtained the status of a noninfringer based on the California case.

Finally, Judge Craven recommended that the manufacturer defendant’s summary judgment of no contributory infringement should be granted because based on the claim preclusion and Kessler doctrine findings, there is no underlying direct infringement.

Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., C. A. No. 6:12­cv­17, Doc. No. 363 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

District Court
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.