From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
474 F.3d 1298, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1400 (2007)
Transclean Corporation, James Viken, Jon Lang, and Donald Johnson (collectively, Transclean) (plaintiffs) sued Bridgewood Services, Inc. (Bridgewood) in federal court for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,318,080 (the 080 patent). Transclean alleged that machines sold by Bridgewood (T-Tech machines) infringed the 080 patent. Transclean won the lawsuit and was awarded $1.87 million in damages. Bridgewood’s successor business obtained a license for the T-Tech machines that went into effect on May 1, 1998, so any machines sold on or after that date were not subject to the infringement suit. Transclean then filed an infringement suit against over 30 fast-lube businesses (defendants) in federal court in the Eighth Circuit, alleging each business used an infringing T-Tech machine purchased from Bridgewood prior to May 1, 1998. These machines were also the subject of litigation in the Bridgewood suit. A subset of defendants including Jiffy Lube International, Inc. (collectively, Jiffy Lube) filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that claim preclusion barred Transclean from suing Jiffy Lube for infringement. Transclean filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that issue preclusion applied and stating that Jiffy Lube was in privity with Bridgewood. The district court granted Jiffy Lube’s motion because the elements of claim preclusion, including privity, were satisfied and denied Transclean’s motion. Transclean asserted that Jiffy Lube was in privity with Bridgewood in discovery documents, in its amended complaint, and during the summary-judgment motion. Transclean also explicitly conceded that privity existed for claim-preclusion purposes. Transclean appealed the summary judgment of claim preclusion and only began denying the existence of privity between Bridgewood and Jiffy Lube late in the appeals process. Jiffy Lube argued on appeal that privity was a question of fact, and Transclean argued that privity was a question of law.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Plager, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.