§Why CasetextPricing

Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Limited et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Substitute Party

11 Cited authorities

  1. Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc.

    508 U.S. 83 (1993)   Cited 624 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding appeal was not moot where sole issue remaining was request for declaratory relief

  2. Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister

    863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 554 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding even “ ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive”

  3. GFI, Inc. v. Franklin Corp.

    265 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that waiver of privileged information is not a substantive patent law issue and regional circuit law applies

  4. Typeright Keyboard v. Microsoft Corp.

    374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in some circumstances, summary judgment may be inappropriate when the credibility of an affiant is drawn into question

  5. Westvaco Corp. v. International Paper Co.

    991 F.2d 735 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 71 times
    Affirming district court's denial of intervening rights, even though the infringer had established a prima facie case for intervening rights because the district court concluded that under "the factual circumstances of the case" allowing the defense would be inequitable.

  6. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John Labatt Limited

    89 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir. 1996)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to realign where the parties split the burden of proof on several issues

  7. L-3 Communications Corp. v. OSI Systems, Inc.

    418 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    In L-3 Communications Corp. v. OSI Sys., Inc., 418 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the trial court denied a contested motion to bifurcate trial where each of two parties had burdens of proof on their respective claims and counterclaims—one party had the burden on certain issues, and the other party had the burden on other issues.

  8. Skogen v. Dow Chemical Company

    375 F.2d 692 (8th Cir. 1967)   Cited 96 times
    Concluding that opinion contained in hospital record inadmissible under business-records exception because, among other things, admission would deny defendant opportunity to cross-examine

  9. Dishman v. American General Assurance Company

    193 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (N.D. Iowa 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Recognizing the court's discretion to reconsider an order either granting or denying summary judgment, because such an order is interlocutory

  10. Merial Ltd. v. Intervet Inc.

    430 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Granting motion to dismiss the parent corporation's infringement suit because "standing under the Patent Act cannot be based on the mere fact that [the subsidiary] is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [the parent company]"

  11. Section 293 - Nonresident patentee; service and notice

    35 U.S.C. § 293   Cited 86 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Vesting exclusive jurisdiction over foreign patentees in the Eastern District of Virginia