Patent Law

Demo Derby

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Brian L. Evans let his oversized ego get in the way of a grab at the brass ring of patent payout. 4,398,735 claims a truck assembly for roller skates and skateboards. Evans was the inventor. Evans insisted in acting as his own attorney in convoluted litigation over a licensing agreement dispute with Roller Derby Skate, in violation of the "longstanding rule that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney."

D Beam and Brian L. Evans v. Roller Derby Skate and others (CAFC 07-1368)

D Beam was Evans' shell company.

Evans brought a patent infringement charge after making a mess of the original lawsuit. The court threw it out. The appeals court, in a non-precedential decision, affirmed.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, more specifically claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in that action. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). For claim preclusion to attach, there must be an identity of parties or their privies, an earlier final judgment on the merits, and the new claim must be based on the same set of transactional facts as the first. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that "courts have defined 'transaction' in terms of a 'core of operative facts,' the 'same operative facts,' or the 'same nucleus of operative facts,' and 'based on the same, or nearly the same, factual allegations.'"). The Ninth Circuit also adheres to a transactional test to determine whether a successive suit is barred by claim preclusion. See Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1993).

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on June 06, 2008 (boomark / email).