Federal Circuit· 5/13/2008

ACUMED LLC v. Stryker Corp.

Citations

525 F.3d 1319
86 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1950
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10244
2008 WL 2020534

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).

Judges: Newman, Gajarsa, and Linn, Circuit Judges

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.