REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Sequenom Defendants' Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Declaratory Judgment Claims II Through XI
Holding that "where a patentee asserts rights under a patent based on certain identified ongoing or planned activity of another party, and where that party contends that it has the right to engage in the accused activity without license, an Article III case or controversy will arise"
Holding that the possibility of future activity that would be subject to a patent infringement claim was too uncertain to create a justiciable controversy
Holding that, under Medlmmune, declaratory judgment jurisdiction existed based on a cease and desist letter plus defendant's suits against other manufacturers
Holding that a patent holder's renunciation of all infringement claims arising from the products currently manufactured by a competitor mooted the competitor's request for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity
Holding that even after the Supreme Court's decision in MedImmune, "the issue of whether there has been meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity remains an important element in the totality of circumstances which must be considered in determining whether a declaratory judgment is appropriate"
Holding that fear over suit over "new products 'in the pipeline,' but not advertised, manufactured, marketed, or sold before the filing date" failed to demonstrate the continued existence of an actual case or controversy
Holding that the covenant not to sue proffered by Ablaise, which did not included Dow Jones' parent corporation News Corporation, which is a legally distinct entity, was sufficient to extinguish the controversy between Ablaise and Dow Jones and divest the district court of its Article III jurisdiction