Judge William Kuntz
Serby’s 1995 action alleging that defendants’ SA10YR model smoke detector infringed his ’434 Patent was settled in 1997 under an agreement requiring defendants’ payment of a royalty. Defendants stopped payments after 2008. They replaced the SA10YR model with the SA340 model. Because the SA340 model allows the consumer to remove and open its battery compartment, defendants claimed the SA340 model not "unopenable" under the settlement agreement. In his federally removed breach action seeking $5 million for breach of the settlement agreement, the court denied Serby summary judgment and strike of defendants’ affirmative defenses. Serby’ case raised the same issue as in Baseload Energy v. Roberts, where the court, applying Federal Circuit law, found defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel or contractual estoppel. A genuine fact issue existed whether the SA340 model smoke alarm was essentially the same as the SA10YR model that was the subject of the 1995 lawsuit. Further, the language of the settlement agreement was insufficient to raise contractual estoppel in future actions between the parties over devices other than the SA10YR model smoke alarm.
