Main Content
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
Traditionally, issue preclusion could only be invoked by a person who also was bound by the prior judgment, a rule known as the rule of “mutuality.” Many courts have eroded that rule, and some have subsequently debated whether or not they should have.
The following case illustrates the partial erosion of the mutuality requirement in the federal court system. As you read Blonder-Tongue, consider the following. Though Blonder-Tongue is a patents case, lower courts have used its rules for nonmutual preclusion in many different types of suits. Should its reasoning be extended to other contexts? Will the cost savings imagined by the Court translate?
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.