What is the significance of the In re Construction Equipment Company case for reexamination proceedings?

The case of In re Construction Equipment Company, 665 F.3d 1254, 100 USPQ2d 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2011) is significant for reexamination proceedings as it reinforces the principle that neither claim preclusion (res judicata) nor issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) typically bar reexamination.

According to MPEP § 2659:

“See also In re Construction Equipment Company, 665 F.3d 1254, 100 USPQ2d 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2011), in which the majority did not adopt the dissent view that reexamination was barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) or issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).”

This case reaffirms that the USPTO is generally not bound by previous court decisions in infringement cases when conducting reexaminations. It underscores the independence of the reexamination process from prior litigation outcomes, allowing the USPTO to conduct its own analysis of patent validity.

To learn more:

• Construction Equipment Company
• reexamination
• claim preclusion
• issue preclusion
• federal circuit