case that a trial is necessary to determine whether the no-challenge clause is enforceable. That issue will no longer be a part the trial. B. Other Forms of Estoppel PatentRatings also argues that Ocean Tomo should be estopped from challenging the validity of the patents under “the doctrines of equitable estoppel, assignor es-toppel, and judicial estoppel.” R. 254 at 20. 1. Equitable Estoppel PatentRatings contends that “there are .'.. circumstances in which the equities of the contractual relationships between the parties should deprive one party ... of the right to [challenge potentially invalid patents].” R. 113 at 18 (quoting Diamond Scientific Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 573 F.2d 976, 982 (7th Cir. 1978) (<HOLDING>). However, both of the 'cases PatentRatings
holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that prejudice is established if there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance between life and death holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that lear does not bar a plaintiffs recovery where there is no balance of equities between defendantlicensee and plaintiff in their contractual relations