Order Reducing Scope of Case to Limited Number of "Representative" Claims Does Not Preclude Later Litigation of Unasserted Claims

The magistrate judge recommended denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss and rejected defendant's argument that "the court should dismiss all of the claims of the patents-in-suit because [plaintiff] admitted that the claims it asserted in [an earlier case] were 'representative.'. . . [T]here could have been no final decision on the validity of claims that were withdrawn, not asserted, or never litigated in [the] first case -- that is, there could have been no final decision on 'the identical question' of the validity of claims that were not presented to the jury in the first case."

Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., et. al., 2-10-cv-00294 (TXED August 16, 2011, Order) (Everingham, M.J.)