Yes, yes and especially.....

The '108 patent, on the other hand, presents a separate claim construction issue. The '108 patent is not ‎related to the '774 patent, but does disclose a purported improvement to the '774 patent. While the ‎‎'108 patent may incorporate by reference the '774 patent as prior art, it does not change the fact that ‎the patents are not related. The '108 patent discloses a separate invention, includes a distinct ‎prosecution history, and is supported by a different written description—including Figures 3 and 4,‎ which clearly depict RAM. These distinctions reinforce the well understood notion that claims of ‎unrelated patents must be construed separately so the panel holds that the district court erred in applying ‎collateral estoppel to the '108 patent.‎

The panel notes that its decision that collateral estoppel cannot apply to the construction of a claim in one ‎patent based on a previous claim construction of an unrelated patent is not an invitation to assume the ‎opposite is always justified. That is, a court cannot impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim ‎construction dispute solely because the patents are related. Each case requires a determination that ‎each of the requirements for collateral estoppel are met, including that the issue previously decided is ‎identical to the one sought to be litigated. A continuation-in-part, for instance, may disclose new ‎matter that could materially impact the interpretation of a claim, and therefore require a new claim ‎construction inquiry.‎