33 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,086 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,375 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,607 times 90 Legal Analyses
Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"
Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n
554 U.S. 724 (2008) Cited 1,277 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a reasonable expectation that a congressional candidate would be subject to a federal campaign finance law in the future when he "made a public statement expressing his intent" to run for the seat in the future
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 6,388 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth
300 U.S. 227 (1937) Cited 3,480 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a request for a declaratory judgment regarding an insured's disability was justiciable
San Leandro Emergen. Med. Plan v. Philip Morris
75 F.3d 801 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 718 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a company's statements that it was "optimistic" about its earnings and "should deliver income growth consistent with its historically superior performance" was non-actionable "puffery"
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.
552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 379 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"
PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander
103 F.3d 1105 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 484 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."
Sandisk v. Stmicroelectronics
480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 313 times 11 Legal Analyses
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"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,286 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,465 times 2245 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 301 - Jurisdiction over persons, property or status
N.Y. CPLR 301 Cited 1,578 times
Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard

Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

Holding that there was a reasonable expectation that a congressional candidate would be subject to a federal campaign finance law in the future when he "made a public statement expressing his intent" to run for the seat in the future

Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"

Holding that a request for a declaratory judgment regarding an insured's disability was justiciable

Holding that a company's statements that it was "optimistic" about its earnings and "should deliver income growth consistent with its historically superior performance" was non-actionable "puffery"

Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"

Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."

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"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Codifying caselaw that incorporates "doing business" standard