§

Motorola Mobility, Inc., Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC v. Nextel Communications, Inc.

No. 91200355 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2012)
Motorola Mobility, Inc., Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC v. Nextel Communications, Inc.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

    439 U.S. 322 (1979)   Cited 4,294 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

  2. N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp.

    706 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 263 times
    Finding claims not precluded for these reasons

  3. Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

    223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 79 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the same cause of action can exist in two cases only where the same set of transactional facts are involved in those cases and that, where the transactional facts differ, the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply

  4. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. Thinksharp, Inc.

    448 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Describing the three requirements for claim preclusion

  5. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions, Inc.

    424 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Vacating TTAB dismissal that was based on preclusive effect of district court infringement litigation

  6. Rosenberg v. Nextel Communications, Inc.

    No. 00 C 6624 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2001)

    No. 00 C 6624 November 13, 2001 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Judge George M. MAROVICH Plaintiff Matthew Rosenberg ("Rosenberg") filed a complaint against Nextel Communications Inc. ("Nextel") and Motorola Inc. ("Motorola") (collectively "defendants") in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois. In a three-count complaint, Rosenberg alleges that defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 505/2 ("Count I"); committed breach of implied

  7. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 336,206 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit