Roy Lee Boykin v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “We have held that claim preclusion does not bar a party from asserting infringement based on activity occurring after the judgment in the earlier suit.”
• “In a patent suit, essential transactional facts include both the asserted patents and the accused activity.”
• “Kessler ’s rationale is that the accused activity, held in the earlier case not to infringe the patent, acquires a limited trade right to continue being practiced ‘without molestation’ by the patentee or its privies.”
• “[I].e., products that claim preclusion could not reach because of their timing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).