"Absent from that article is one distinct difference between the Reese case and our case,"

SGE1...Your point is pretty much understood on this board...

One other issue that is distinct fully different....e.Digital settled with the Colorado defendants with prejudice (of which we do not know the conditions) as Reese did....however, e.Digital is not litigating against any of the Colorado defendants.

Reese settled conditions with prejudice ...and then went back against the same defendants.

"Following an unfavorable claim construction order, Reese stipulated to the entry of final judgment of noninfringement of claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 25, and 36, and to the dismissal of claims 23 and 32 with prejudice.

"Reese also argued that the stipulated dismissal with prejudice in the previous case was not a final judgment for the purposes of collateral estoppel as to claims 23 and 32 of the ’150 patent because the issue of infringement of those claims was never decided."

There was a final judgment ..."dismissal of claims 23 and 32 with prejudice." The stipulated dismissal should have been without prejudice, if there was an intent to go after the same defendants.

"On appeal, the Federal Court held that collateral estoppel prevented Reese from relitigating the case as shown by his own intentions because he explicitly consented to dismiss with prejudice"

IMO, Reese needed a smarter attorney...or one that could be trusted

doni