Does Claim Construction apply to a subsequent case in another district

[3putt]

Scenario all regarding the same patent:
Patent lawsuit #1 in one district; Plaintiffs vs Defendant 1
Markman hearing completed: court construes Term 1 to means X. Case then settles and is dismissed

Then,
Patent lawsuit #2 in another district; same plaintiff vs different Defendant 2 (no privity to Defendant 1).

Question: do we have the same interpretation of Term 1 as meaning X in the second case? Will the 2nd court give deference to the first court's marksman construction? Or will we have a second Markman heading where the 2nd court could rule that Term 1 could mean Y (slightly different than X)

[MYK]

Disclaimer: this is what I remember from a decade ago.  I may be misremembering.

D2 gets to argue the claim construction anew.  Because D2 is unrelated to D1, D2 cannot be bound by D1's arguments.  D2 might see something that D1 missed, or D1's attorneys might have thrown the case for a huge bribe, or whatever.

Either party, or both, could introduce the same arguments as in the first case, but they aren't binding.  I don't think there's even any deference.

[EvilLost]

I think MYK is correct.

Speaking from a purely legal perspective, rulings in one district are not binding on another district, however they are persuasive to the other district. There is no res judicata here since the parties are different.