Opinion ID: 2008618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Law-of-the-Case Doctrine Inapplicable

Text: [12-15] New Tek argues that by entering summary judgment in favor of the Estate following remand, the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by ignoring our holding in New Tek I that there were genuine issues of material fact which precluded summary judgment on the record as it was then presented. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court's holdings on questions presented to it in reviewing the trial court's proceedings become the law of the case; those holdings conclusively settle, for the purposes of that litigation, all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. [31] The doctrine reflects the principle that `[a]n issue which has been litigated and decided in one stage of a case should not be relitigated in a later stage.' [32] When an appellate court remands a case to an inferior tribunal, the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents that court from taking action inconsistent with the judgment of the appellate court. [33] Our opinion in New Tek I addressed the merits of the infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents. We did not discuss or decide the legal issue of prosecution history estoppel, which was raised for the first time following our remand in New Tek I. Accordingly, the law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude the district court from addressing this issue.