According to the doctrine of exclusion of claims, a judgment on the merits, in an earlier appeal, excludes a second remedy involving the same parties or their privileges on the basis of the same plea. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.P. 322, 326 n.5 (1979). The exclusion of rights precludes both the rights that were invoked and those that could have been invoked in the earlier appeal. Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 p. Ct. 1589, 1594-95 (2020). This decision shows that a settlement agreement that does not establish a patent owner`s right of appeal may exclude any future infringement actions against other potential infringers.
The applicant and Ms Ackerman (her sister-in-law and the second defendant) have the same interests in a group of undertakings. They decided to separate and agreed that Mr. Thornhill QC (the first accused) would be appointed as an expert to determine the basis of the split. M. Thornhill, QC, held that all the companies should be transferred to Ms. Ackerman, after which the Grievor filed a lawsuit against him for bias and collusion. That action was dismissed and the applicant appealed. The appeal was then settled by reference. As part of the transaction, the claimant agreed not to pursue its rights. Mr.
Thornhill QC then wrote a final report on Ms. Ackerman. The court quashed the applicant`s appeal, as the documents on which he relied had all been disclosed to him in the course of the first proceedings. As a result, there was no new evidence to allow the Tribunal to set aside the earlier judgment and the order of approval. The Tribunal noted that it is in the public interest for it to be final in litigation, which will be strengthened once the parties have entered into a settlement agreement. In addition, a settlement agreement should only be compromised for reasons that are as clear as possible. On September 6, 2016, plaintiffs Rachel Gniewskowski, R. David New and Access Now, Inc. – represented by Carlson, Lynch, Kilpela & Sweet – sued retailer Party City in the Western District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the Party City site was not accessible to the visually impaired, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
On October 1, 2016 (while the complaint was pending in Pennsylvania), Party City entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Andres Gomez, who had previously filed a similar complaint in Florida. Both complaints contained the same basic facts and legal rights and sought similar relief – a modification of the site in order to make it accessible and usable by people with disabilities. . . .