§Why CasetextPricing

Mallinckrodt IP et al v. B. Braun Medical Inc.

ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

13 Cited authorities

  1. Davis v. Fargo

    824 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2016)   Cited 841 times
    Holding appellant's claims were barred by claim preclusion because he “was well aware of all of the operative facts prior to” filing his amended complaint

  2. Mortensen v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n

    549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 3,795 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that dismissal under Rule 12(b) would be “unusual” when the facts necessary to succeed on the merits are at least in part the same as must be alleged or proven to withstand jurisdictional attacks

  3. Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.

    926 F.2d 1406 (3d Cir. 1991)   Cited 1,992 times
    Holding that the RlCO-continuity analysis of an allegedly fraudulent scheme must focus on "the instances of deceit constituting the underlying fraudulent scheme"

  4. Petruska v. Gannon University

    462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 768 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim was unaffected by the ministerial exception because its resolution "does not turn on the lawfulness of the decision to restructure, but rather upon the truth or falsity of the assurances that she would be evaluated on her merits" and that the breach of contract claim could also move forward because enforcement "in no way constitutes a state-imposed limit upon a church's free exercise rights," although it would be subject to an evaluation of whether resolution "required inquiry into the church's ecclesiastical policy"

  5. SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

    601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 173 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[a]bsent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone" lacks standing to sue for patent infringement

  6. Sicom Systems, Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies

    427 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 181 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensor remained the patentee based on rights to sue for noncommercial infringement and to consent to assignment

  7. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC

    625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 129 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the execution of a nunc pro tunc assignment nearly eight months after the filing of the complaint from a parent to its subsidiary did not confer standing as plaintiff was "required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively."

  8. WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc.

    631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 89 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an exclusive licensee does not lack constitutional standing to assert its rights under the licensed patent merely because its license is subject not only to rights in existence at the time of the license but also to future licenses that may be granted only to parties other than the accused"

  9. Bd. of Trs. Leland v. Roche Molecular

    583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 73 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was error for the district court to consider an argument as only a counterclaim when it was properly pled as both a counterclaim and an affirmative defense

  10. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    198 F. Supp. 3d 366 (D. Del. 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that under Delaware law, a gratuitous assignment is not required to be supported by adequate consideration

  11. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 10,799 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

  12. Section 100 - Definitions

    35 U.S.C. § 100   Cited 613 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Defining a " ‘joint research agreement’ " as a written agreement between "2 or more persons or entities"

  13. Section 261 - Ownership; assignment

    35 U.S.C. § 261   Cited 428 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"