§Why CasetextPricing

Birchwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Battenfeld Technologies, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

17 Cited authorities

  1. Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.

    549 U.S. 118 (2007)   Cited 2,535 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"

  2. Md. Casualty Co. v. Pacific Co.

    312 U.S. 270 (1941)   Cited 2,916 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that declaratory judgment action was ripe where state action was pending, and state law gave party the right to sue the other

  3. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth

    300 U.S. 227 (1937)   Cited 3,448 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a request for a declaratory judgment regarding an insured's disability was justiciable

  4. 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"

  5. Teva v. Novartis

    482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 217 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign litigation is not dispositive of the jurisdiction analysis, but is one factor to be considered

  6. Micron v. Mosaid

    518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 200 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Medlmmune, declaratory judgment jurisdiction existed based on a cease and desist letter plus defendant's suits against other manufacturers

  7. Arrowhead Indus. Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem

    846 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 272 times
    Holding that jurisdiction depends on "the facts existing when the complaint is filed"

  8. Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds

    503 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a dependent claim incorporated by reference the process of an independent claim

  9. Sony v. Guardian Media

    497 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "patentee's apparent continued willingness to engage in licensing negotiations does not prevent a plaintiff from maintaining a declaratory judgment suit" because "[the patentee] was within its rights to terminate them when it determined that further negotiations would be unproductive"

  10. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.

    395 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 68 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the listing of patent FDA's Orange Book, without more, should not be construed as blanket threat to potential infringers

  11. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,534 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  12. Section 1.131 - Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art

    37 C.F.R. § 1.131   Cited 116 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing inventors to contest rejection by submitting an affidavit "to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based"

  13. Section 1.102 - Advancement of examination

    37 C.F.R. § 1.102   Cited 14 times   22 Legal Analyses

    (a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Director to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) or (e) of this section or upon filing a petition or request under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section with a showing which, in the opinion of the Director, will justify so advancing it. (b) Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to

  14. Section 1.17 - Patent application and reexamination processing fees

    37 C.F.R. § 1.17   Cited 5 times   48 Legal Analyses

    (a) Extension fees pursuant to § 1.136(a) : (1) For reply within first month: Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $44.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 88.00 By other than a small or micro entity 220.00 (2) For reply within second month: Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $128.00 By a small entity (§ 1.27(a) ) 256.00 By other than a small or micro entity 640.00 (3) For reply within third month: Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(3) By a micro entity (§ 1.29 ) $296.00