On June 15, 2015, Barnes & Noble filed a Motion For De Novo Determination by U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s recommendation that claim and issue preclusion not be applied to an ITC determination of non-infringement in Technology Properties v. Barnes & Noble, Case No. 3:12-cv-03863-VC in the Northern District of California (see prior coverage). Barnes & Noble requested a July 23, 2015 date for a hearing on the matter. In the interim, another U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkin denied a request by defendants Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Seiko Epson, Rosewell and Newegg to bar plaintiff TPL from bringing infringement claims in Technology Properties Ltd v. Canon, Case No. 14-cv-03640 in the Northern District of California, because the ITC found in 2012 their products did not infringe the asserted patents – the parties stipulated that these products were “essentially the same” as the newly accused products in the district court case. In an Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Judge Wilkin rejected defendants’ request that res judicata should apply under the Kessler doctrine holding that the relevant inquiry is whether Congress granted the ITC “authority to provide binding decisions” and that “Congress has expressly indicated that ITC decisions are not entitled to have preclusive effect”, quoting Senate Report No. 1298, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 196 (1974). For this reason, Judge Wilkin also distinguished defendants’ citation to a recent Supreme Court decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Indus.,135 S.Ct. 1293, 1299 (2015), which Judge Wilkin found “emphasized that courts must defer to Congress’s view that an agency’s action should not be preclusive.”