§Why CasetextPricing

Juniper Networks Inc v. Bahattab

MOTION TO AUTHORIZE SERVICE VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILE, PURSUANT TO RULE 4

9 Cited authorities

  1. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink

    284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,488 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements

  2. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.

    550 U.S. 437 (2007)   Cited 54 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Windows "software, uncoupled from a medium" was not a "combinable component" and that "a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a 'component' under § 271(f)."

  3. Popular Enterprises, LLC v. Webcom Media Group, Inc.

    225 F.R.D. 560 (E.D. Tenn. 2004)   Cited 40 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that service by email was warranted

  4. Williams v. Advertising Sex Llc.

    231 F.R.D. 483 (N.D.W. Va. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that a plaintiff's petition for service under Rule 4(f) “may proceed without seeking service under the other provisions of Rule 4(f)”

  5. Riker Lab., Inc. v. Gist-Brocades N. V

    636 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that "the Congressional reports do not brilliantly illuminate the Congressional intent"

  6. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 71,368 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  7. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,113 times   1078 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  8. Section 293 - Nonresident patentee; service and notice

    35 U.S.C. § 293   Cited 84 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Vesting exclusive jurisdiction over foreign patentees in the Eastern District of Virginia

  9. Section 25 - Declaration in lieu of oath

    35 U.S.C. § 25   Cited 12 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The Director may by rule prescribe that any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form as the Director may prescribe, such declaration to be in lieu of the oath otherwise required. (b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment,