ACUMED LLC v. Stryker Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim is not barred by claim preclusion “merely because it could have been” raised in a prior action
• stating that “claim preclusion does not apply unless the accused device in the action before the court is ‘essentially the same’ as the accused device in a prior action between the parties that was resolved by a judgment on the merits”
• applying Federal Circuit law to determine whether two claims for patent infringement are identical for claim preclusion purposes
• stating the Federal Circuit is guided by the Restatement “[i]n applying the doctrine of claim preclusion”
• “In apply ing the doctrine of [claim] preclusion, 29 this court is guided by the Restatement (Second) of Judgments”
• “Typically, claim preclusion is applied against a plaintiff who brings a second action related to an earlier action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).