§Why CasetextPricing

Inguran, LLC et al v. ABS Global, Inc. et al

Brief in Opposition

13 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. Jones

    515 U.S. 304 (1995)   Cited 1,919 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the defendant police officer was challenging the denial of summary judgment on an excessive force claim by arguing only that she did not do what she was accused of doing -- striking, punching or kicking the plaintiff -- she was asking for a review of the claim's merits, which is not permissible on interlocutory review

  2. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.

    446 U.S. 1 (1980)   Cited 2,045 times
    Holding that it was "proper for the District Judge here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals"

  3. Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Risjord

    449 U.S. 368 (1981)   Cited 989 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that orders refusing to disqualify counsel are not immediately appealable because there is usually an adequate remedy after final judgment—the court of appeals can vacate the judgment and order a new trial

  4. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Mackey

    351 U.S. 427 (1956)   Cited 1,088 times
    Holding that Rule 54(b) "does not relax the finality required of each decision, as an individual claim, to render it appealable, but it does provide a practical means of permitting an appeal to be taken from one or more final decisions on individual claims, in multiple claims actions, without waiting for final decisions to be rendered on all the claims in the case."

  5. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    611 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in claim construction, "the specification to be consulted is that of the issued patent, not an earlier application"

  6. Spraytex, Inc. v. DJS T

    96 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the absence of Rule 54(b) certification, no appeal may be taken from a judgment disposing of fewer than all actions consolidated by the district court

  7. Abelesz v. Erste Group Bank AG

    695 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Nos. 11–2940 11–2946. 2012-08-22 Erno Kalman ABELESZ et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. ERSTE GROUP BANK AG, Defendant–Appellant. In re Erste Group Bank AG, Petitioner. Anthony Alfred D'Amato, Attorney, Northwestern University School of Law, Paul M. Weiss, Jeffrey A. Leon (argued), Attorney, Complex Litigation Group LLC, Highland Park, IL, Robert James Pavich (argued), Attorney, Pavich Law Group, Chicago, IL, Richard H. Weisberg, Cardozo Law School, New York, NY, for Plaintiff–Appellee and Party–in–Interest

  8. Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Handa Pharms., LLC

    Case No.: 11-00840 JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013)

    Case No.: 11-00840 JCS Related Case: C-11-01609 Related Case: C-11-01610 04-30-2013 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, et al., Plaintiff, v. HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, et al., Defendant. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiff, v. ANCHEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. Joseph C. Spero ORDER RE TAKEDA'S REQUEST FOR RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT Docket No. 281 On April 18, 2013

  9. Medeva Pharma Suisse v. Par Pharm

    430 F. App'x 878 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011-1391. July 7, 2011. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in case no. 10-CV-4008, Judge Freda L. Wolfson. Before PROST, Circuit Judge. ON MOTION PROST, Circuit Judge. ORDER Medeva Pharma Suisse A.G. et al. (Medeva) move to dismiss Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. (Par)'s appeal, arguing that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey improperly directed entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Par oppose. Medeva reply

  10. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES v. ELI LILLY CO

    Case No. 07-CV-15087 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2009)

    Case No. 07-CV-15087. October 29, 2009 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT ON FEWER THAN ALL CLAIMS UNDER RULE 54(b) (# 73) GEORGE STEEH III, District Judge Defendant Eli Lilly and Company moves for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to this court's August 17, 2009 Order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. on determining that Eli Lilly's U.S. Patent 5,464,826 ("'826 Patent") is invalid under

  11. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,757 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  12. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,019 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  13. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"