Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore

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

Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.

Holding that two suits were not "based on the same cause of action," because "[t]he conduct presently complained of was all subsequent to" the prior judgment and it "cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case"

Fink v. Golenbock

Holding that defendant's actions in attempting to usurp the business and clientele of one corporation in favor of another fall under CUTPA

Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik v. Murata Mach

Holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot "point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant."

Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.

Holding that the Lear v. Adkins ruling, which overrides certain contractual promises, does not override the claim-preclusive effect of a consent decree

Acumed v. Stryker

Holding that a claim for patent infringement is "barred by claim preclusion if that claim arises from the same transactional facts as a prior action"

Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.

Finding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."

Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems

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

Young Engineers v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n

Holding that a previous final judgment on a claim extinguishes "all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action" arose

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Section 1119 - Power of court over registration

Granting the court the power in an action involving a registered mark to order the cancellation of a registration

Section 1071 - Appeal to courts

Granting a right of appeal only to parties "dissatisfied with the decision" of the Board

Section 2.145 - Appeal to court and civil action

Stating that a party has sixty-three days to appeal a decision of the TTAB

Section 2.127 - Motions