§Why CasetextPricing

Honeywell Intl Inc., et al v. Apple Computer Inc., et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Intervene

18 Cited authorities

  1. Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn

    434 U.S. 860 (1977)   Cited 115 times

    No. 77-179. October 3, 1977. C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 553 F.2d 740.

  2. Kahn v. General Motors Corp.

    889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "transfer is inappropriate when it merely serves to shift inconveniences from one party to the other."

  3. Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.

    909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appeal of the joinder of two defendants was inextricably intertwined with appeal of an injunction prohibiting suit against the defendants in another jurisdiction because the latter appeal involved factors pertinent to the former

  4. LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-lity Computer Inc.

    211 F.R.D. 360 (N.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 84 times
    Rejecting argument in context of patent exhaustion case

  5. Codex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp.

    553 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1977)   Cited 164 times
    Holding that orders granting or denying venue transfer are customarily not appealable as of right

  6. Dentsply Intern., Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co.

    734 F. Supp. 656 (D. Del. 1990)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that the decision to grant or deny a stay is within the court's broad range of discretionary powers

  7. Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Elec

    266 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the date on which an invention is “made” for purposes of priority under 102(g) is the earlier of either “a reduction to practice, or conception of the invention plus diligence to actual or constructive reduction to practice.”

  8. Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Aeroflex Incorporated

    279 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D. Del. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Applying customer-suit exception in case alleging infringement of method claims, concluding that "[plaintiff's] infringement claims against the defendants are fundamentally claims against the ordinary use" of a manufacturer's software

  9. Rottlund Homes of N.J. v. Saul, Ewing, Remick Saul

    243 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D. Del. 2003)   Cited 10 times

    Civil Action No. 01-783-JJF January 30, 2003 John S. Grady, Esquire of GRADY HAMPTON, P.A., Dover, Delaware. Of Counsel: Robert R. Weinstine, Esquire and Craig S. Krummen, Esquire of WINTHROP WEINSTINE, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Edward M. McNally, Esquire and Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Esquire of MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS WILLIAMS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. David E. Wilks, Esquire of WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware

  10. ARGOS v. Orthotec LLC

    304 F. Supp. 2d 591 (D. Del. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    No. CIV. 03-0757-SLR. January 8, 2004 Srinivas M. Raju, Esquire and Lisa M., Zwally, Esquire, Richards, Layton Finger, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff. Of, Counsel: Jess M. Collen, Esquire and, James R. Hastings, Esquire, Collen IP, Ossining, NY. David L. Finger, Esquire, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sue Robinson, District JudgeWest Page 592 I. INTRODUCTION On July 25, 2003, Association europeenee des groupes d'etudes pour l'osteo-synthese rachidienne ("ARGOS") filed a complaint