Chicago Brand Industrial, Inc. v. Mitutoyo Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In a non-precedential case, the Federal Circuit today refused to reconsider an earlier consent decree even though the patentee later filed a terminal disclaimer that cuts short the life of the patent.
In July 2000, after being sued for infringement, Chicago Brand agreed to a settlement with Mitutoyo. The consent decree signed by the district court found that Chicago Brand infringed the Mitutoyo’s patent, that Chicago Brand was enjoined from further infringement during the term of the patent, and that the patent expires on May 10, 2005. Later, Mitutoyo allegedly filed a terminal disclaimer in the parent case — making the patent only enforceable up to December 13, 2000.
Chicago Brand sued for a declaratory judgment that the patent had expired as a result of the terminal disclaimer. Both the district and appellate courts refused to reopen the consent decree — finding that "the principles of res judicata require that Chicago Brand now live with its earlier agreement in the Consent Judgment and Decree that the patent expires on May 10, 2005."
Dismissal Affirmed