ESTOPPEL

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

Issues

Can judicial estoppel prevent a plaintiff from pursuing a civil claim that he failed to disclose during bankruptcy proceedings, even without evidence that the plaintiff acted in bad faith?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a bankruptcy debtor who fails to disclose a civil claim during bankruptcy proceedings can later pursue that claim in federal court. The case also asks whether courts can prohibit undisclosed claims when a bankruptcy trustee, instead of the debtor, seeks to continue the lawsuit. Keathley argues that the Fifth Circuit’s rigid judicial estoppel test is inconsistent with equitable principles and suggests a flexible, totality of the circumstances approach that allows debtors to correct mistakes without forfeiting valuable claims. On the other hand, Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. contends that an objective judicial estoppel rule best aligns with bankruptcy’s goal of protecting creditors while conditioning a debtor’s fresh start on full disclosure of known assets. The Court’s decision has sweeping implications for debtors and creditors and fairness in bankruptcy proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.

To discharge his debts, Thomas Keathley filed a bankruptcy petition and Chapter 13 repayment plan in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on De

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal

Issues

Does 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) require the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue a written decision on every claim challenged by the petitioner?

This case arises from a suit in which ComplementSoft claimed SAS Institute infringed its patent and SAS responded by petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for a determination on the validity of ComplementSoft’s patent. SAS argues that, based on a straightforward reading of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and the legislative history of the America Invents Act (“the Act”), the PTAB must issue a final written decision on each of the petitioner’s claims. Relying on the same methods of analysis, ComplementSoft reaches the opposite conclusion, arguing that the PTAB must be allowed discretion to select specific claims for review. The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, which sits above the PTAB, also asserts that the PTAB must have discretion in selecting claims for review. Accordingly, the Court’s decision will affect the efficiency of the PTAB’s review proceedings and impact how parties petition the PTAB.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” require that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or does it allow that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner, as the Federal Circuit held?

Issued on September 19, 2006, United States Patent Number 7,110,936 (“’936 patent”) was thereafter assigned to ComplementSoft, LLC (“ComplementSoft”). SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to ESTOPPEL