Collateral estoppel cases

Collateral estoppel cases in the context of patents and beyond include the following:

* Arctic Cat v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
* B&B Hardware v. Hargis Indus., 575 U.S. 138, 154 (2015) ("issues are not identical [for the purposes of collateral estoppel doctrine] if the second action involves application of a different legal standard")
* Blonder-Tongue Laboratories v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971)
* Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016)
* Cisco Sys. v. Capella Photonics, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230554 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020)
* eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
* Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (collateral estoppel does not apply with the subsequent litigation requires a higher burden of proof)
* In re Yanks, 931 F.2d 42 (11th Cir. 1992)
* Jump Rope Sys. v. Coulter Ventures, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30054 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)
* KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)
* Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006)
* Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, 571 U.S. 191 (2014) (declining to apply collateral estoppel in a patent infringement case)
* Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011)
* Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, 924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming XY as binding precedent)
* Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan GmbH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170790 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2019)
* United States v. Stauffer Chemical, 464 U.S. 165 (1984)
* XY v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (often cited but misapplied precedent on collateral estoppel in patent cases)