§Why CasetextPricing

Hyperquest, Inc. v. N'Site Solutions, Inc. et al

REPLY

14 Cited authorities

  1. Davis v. Blige

    505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 199 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “ valid license ... immunizes the licensee from a charge of copyright infringement, provided that the licensee uses the copyright as agreed with the licensor”

  2. Propat Intern. v. Rpost

    473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party has standing to sue if it “has a legally protected interest in the patent created by the Patent Act,” and that bare licensee has no standing

  3. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Genetics Institute, Inc.

    52 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that “[p]ractice of the invention by others may indeed cause [the nonexclusive licensee] pecuniary loss,” but “economic injury alone does not provide standing to sue under the patent statute”

  4. Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Systematic Refrigeration, Inc.

    117 F. Supp. 2d 508 (E.D. Va. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Stating that "[t]he Federal Circuit has never stated that the licensee must have the right to exclude all others"

  5. Great Lakes Intellectual Property Ltd. v. Sakar International, Inc.

    516 F. Supp. 2d 880 (W.D. Mich. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No. 04-CV-608. August 24, 2007 Douglas A. Dozeman, Michael Brian O'Neal, Janet L. Ramsey, Warner Norcross Judd LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff. Ezra Sutton, Ezra Sutton PA, Woodbridge, NJ, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCOVILLE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE BERNARD FRIEDMAN, Chief District Judge This matter is presently before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss [docket entry 101]. The

  6. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. v. Open Biosystems, Inc.

    No. 4:06-CV-754 CAS (E.D. Mo. Jul. 3, 2007)

    No. 4:06-CV-754 CAS. July 3, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHARLES SHAW, District Judge This matter is before the Court on defendant Open Biosystems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and defendant has filed a reply. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a surreponse and defendant a surreply. For the following reasons the Court will deny the motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' Joint Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing

  7. Ropak Corporation v. Plastican, Inc.

    No. 04-C-5422 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    No. 04-C-5422. September 30, 2005 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID COAR, District Judge Before this court is the motion by Defendant Plastican, Inc. ("Plastican") to dismiss Ropak Corporation ("Ropak") and Plas-Tool Co. ("Plas-Tool") as plaintiffs for lack of standing. Defendant does not challenge the standing of Plaintiffs John W. von Holdt, Jr. and Janice Anderson. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss Ropak as plaintiff is DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plas-Tool

  8. Cook Incorporated v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    208 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    01-C-9479 June 26, 2002 MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge This matter comes before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Plaintiff Cook, Inc. ("Cook") is denied and the motion of Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston") is granted. BACKGROUND In 1997, a Canadian corporation called Angiotech entered into an exclusive licensing agreement ("the Angiotech Agreement") with Cook and Boston. The subject

  9. Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp.

    42 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1930)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that license granting exclusive rights to use patents within narrow field of use allows licensee to sue for patent infringement under its own name.

  10. Paul E. Hawkinson Co. v. Carnell

    112 F.2d 396 (3d Cir. 1940)   Cited 7 times

    No. 7292. May 15, 1940. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; W.H. Kirkpatrick, Judge. Action by Paul E. Hawkinson Company and another against Stanley Carnell and another, a partnership, doing business as Carnell Bradburn, for patent infringement. From a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( 30 F. Supp. 178) dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. William Carson Bodine, of

  11. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  12. Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

    17 U.S.C. § 106   Cited 3,798 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”

  13. Section 501 - Infringement of copyright

    17 U.S.C. § 501   Cited 3,221 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Granting a cause of action to "[t]he legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright"

  14. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 765 times   261 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents