§Why CasetextPricing

Innovatit Seafood Systems, LLC v. Commissioner for Patents

MOTION to Dismiss

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Mitchell

    463 U.S. 206 (1983)   Cited 2,694 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Tucker Act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity" and observing that "the existence of consent [to be sued] is a prerequisite for jurisdiction"

  2. Jerome Stevens Pharm v. Food Drug Admin

    402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,056 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts may look beyond pleadings in the complaint to ascertain their own jurisdiction

  3. Grand Lodge of Frat. Order of Police v. Ashcroft

    185 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001)   Cited 775 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court has an "affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority"

  4. Chung v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

    333 F.3d 273 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that the filing deadline in the Privacy Act is not a jurisdictional bar and is subject to equitable tolling under Irwin's reasoning

  5. Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

    No. CIV.A. 01-0382(RMC) (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2004)   Cited 101 times
    Noting that the "longrunning conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians has its very origins in the question of statehood between them" and refusing "to declare that Palestine is now a sovereign state among nations"

  6. Weil v. Neary

    278 U.S. 160 (1929)   Cited 216 times
    Holding that local rules have the “force of law”

  7. Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work All.

    675 F.2d 356 (D.C. Cir. 1982)   Cited 125 times
    Holding that district court's consideration of matters outside of the pleadings on motion under Rule 12(b) without providing the parties with notice of its intent to do so and opportunity to submit additional documents may be upheld “only if it meets the stringent standard for dismissal without regard to matters outside the pleadings”

  8. Stepovich v. Kupoff

    340 U.S. 943 (1951)   Cited 80 times

    No. 510. March 5, 1951. Messrs. Francis R. Kirkham and Southall R. Pfund, for petitioner. Mr. George B. Grigsby, for respondents. Facts and opinion, 184 F.2d 705, 13 Alaska 46. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Denied.

  9. Felter v. Norton

    412 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 47 times
    Finding that § 2401 is a jurisdictional bar to claims for review of agency informal rulemaking

  10. Suckow Borax Mines Consol. v. Borax Consol

    185 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1950)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that "bare allegations of fraudulent concealment" without supporting facts did not meet the requirement of 9(b)

  11. 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 358,269 times   949 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  13. Section 145 - Civil action to obtain patent

    35 U.S.C. § 145   Cited 505 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting 60 days within which to file for District Court review of the PTO's decision