21 Cited authorities

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,388 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Blonder-Tongue v. University Foundation
402 U.S. 313 (1971) Cited 2,222 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"
Smith v. Bayer Corp.
564 U.S. 299 (2011) Cited 483 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff’s claim could not be enjoined because he was not a party to prior action
Lawlor v. Nat'l Screen Serv.
349 U.S. 322 (1955) Cited 883 times 2 Legal Analyses
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"
Meza v. General Battery Corp.
908 F.2d 1262 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 271 times
Holding that former employee's lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by union's prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit, as a former union member was not in privity with the union, and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.
672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 144 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet
Honeywell Intern v. Hamilton Sundstrand
370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies if the scope of the subject matter claimed in a rewritten independent claim has been narrowed to secure the patent
Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.
947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 182 times 4 Legal Analyses
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
525 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 91 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"
Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.
746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 58 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding Elekta's earlier judgment of noninfringement on other theories enough to confer upon it the status of a non-infringer and give its products "the status of noninfringing products"

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding issue preclusion inappropriate when "without fault of his own the [party to be precluded] was deprived of crucial evidence or witnesses in the first litigation"

Holding plaintiff’s claim could not be enjoined because he was not a party to prior action

Holding that former employee's lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by union's prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit, as a former union member was not in privity with the union, and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit

Holding that an independent claim including the limitation "magnetic member" includes ferromagnetic material in addition to a magnet, in light of dependent claim limiting "magnetic member" to a magnet

Holding that prosecution history estoppel applies if the scope of the subject matter claimed in a rewritten independent claim has been narrowed to secure the patent

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

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"

Holding Elekta's earlier judgment of noninfringement on other theories enough to confer upon it the status of a non-infringer and give its products "the status of noninfringing products"