§Why CasetextPricing

Garmin Switzerland GMBH et al v. Navico, Inc. et al

RESPONSE

40 Cited authorities

  1. Harlow v. Fitzgerald

    457 U.S. 800 (1982)   Cited 31,493 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

  2. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

    687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 373 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the machine-or-transformation test remains an important clue in determining whether some inventions are processes under § 101

  3. Commodity Fut. Trading v. Chilcott Portfolio

    713 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir. 1983)   Cited 324 times
    Holding that "[t]he ruling on the stay involved an exercise of discretion, and [that the Tenth Circuit] focuse on the question whether the appellants have carried the weighty burden of showing an abuse of discretion"

  4. Creative Consumer v. Kreisler

    563 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court did not err by allowing a party to supplement its brief and present evidence of an affirmative defense because the opposing party "had notice of the defense ... and, therefore, suffered no prejudice from failure to comply with Rule 8(c)"

  5. Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal

    872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 80 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Addressing whether the language of § 316(e), which all conceded applied to challenged claims, "applies equally to proposed substitute claims"

  6. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC

    137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017)   Cited 2 times   13 Legal Analyses

    No. 16–712. 06-12-2017 OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, petitioner, v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.

  7. Touchtunes Music Corp. v. Rowe Intern. Corp.

    676 F. Supp. 2d 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "loath to disturb a plaintiff's choice of forum," in particular "where plaintiff's chosen forum is its principal place of business"

  8. Trover Grp., Inc. v. Dedicated Micros U.S.

    Case No. 2:13-CV-1047-WCB (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the concern of loss of documentary and testimonial evidence during a continued stay "is entitled to some weight, although the Court notes that the concern is general in nature, rather than specific..."

  9. Ada Solutions, Inc. v. Engineered Plastics, Inc.

    826 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding prejudice when delay between competitors could stretch on for years

  10. IMAX Corp. v. In-Three, Inc.

    385 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (C.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 38 times
    Denying motion to stay in part because the court must still address defendant's counterclaims, some of which are completely unrelated to patent infringement

  11. Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions

    15 U.S.C. § 1065   Cited 1,105 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Listing the requirements for incontestability

  12. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 535 times   879 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent