Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 545

529US2

Unit: $U49

[10-24-00 10:29:50] PAGES PGT: OPIN

470

NELSON v. ADAMS USA, INC.

Opinion of the Court

does not prevent us from declaring what due process re-
quires in this case, for that matter was fairly before the
Court of Appeals.

In response to questioning from the appellate bench,
Nelson’s counsel explained that the core of his client’s argu-
ment was the fundamental unfairness of imposing judgment
without going through the process of litigation our rules of
civil procedure prescribe.4 Both the majority and the dis-
sent in the Federal Circuit understood that an issue before
them concerned the process due after Adams’ postjudgment
motion. See 175 F. 3d, at 1349, n. 5 (majority opinion); id.,
at 1352 (Newman, J., dissenting). Our resolution of the case
as a matter of due process therefore rests on a ground con-
sidered and passed upon by the court below.

Beneath Adams’ technical and ultimately unavailing argu-
ments about waiver, its essential position in the litigation is
reﬂected in the Federal Circuit’s decision: There was sufﬁ-
cient identity between Nelson and OCP to bind Nelson, with-
out further ado, to a judgment already entered against OCP.
Nelson was president and sole shareholder of OCP. See
id., at 1346.
It was Nelson who withheld prior art from the
Patent Ofﬁce. See id., at 1349. He had actual notice that
Adams was seeking to collect a fee award from OCP, because
he was the “effective controller” of the litigation for OCP
and personally participated as a witness at the hearing on
whether OCP had engaged in inequitable conduct. See ibid.
The Federal Circuit did not conclude that these factors
would have justiﬁed imposing liability on Nelson by piercing

4 Nelson’s counsel stated his position as follows: “[I]t’s legally wrong
to subject the individual, nonserved, nonsued, nonlitigated-against per-
son to liability for that judgment. Because there are rules. The rules
say if you want a judgment against somebody, you sue them, you litigate
against them, you get a judgment against them.” Tape of Oral Arg. in
No. 98–1448 (CA Fed. Feb. 3, 1999).