Alternative System Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.

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 party could not avoid judicial estoppel by failing to discover “readily available” information
• holding that “the appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel” is abuse of discretion (emphasis added)
• recognizing that an exception may be available “if ... the new, inconsistent position is the product of information neither known nor readily available to [a party] at the time the initial position was taken”
• explaining that because court relied on party’s initial position in denying motion to dismiss, party “derived a direct (if temporary) benefit from its original position”
• noting that unfair advantage is “not a formal element of a claim of judicial estoppel”
• emphasizing that \[t]he doctrine's primary utility is to safeguard the integrity of the courts by preventing parties from improperly manipulating the machinery of the justice system\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).