15 Cited authorities

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.
593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) Cited 1,076 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the arbitrator does have the power to determine whether various provisions in the contract are void
Cmax, Inc. v. Hall
300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) Cited 1,254 times
Holding that a delay "is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement"
Spine Solutions v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek
620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 135 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that parent corporation lacked standing to sue for infringement of subsidiary's patent where "nothing in the record indicates that [the parent corporation] is an owner or exclusive licensee of the . . . patent"
Propat Intern. v. Rpost
473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 128 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
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Genetics Institute, Inc.
52 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Cited 167 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”
Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese
402 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 122 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff in patent-infringement action lost standing by assigning all rights to the asserted patents to a non-party entity and that "the case became moot" as a result of the plaintiff's loss of standing
Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.
746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 58 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding Elekta's earlier judgment of noninfringement on other theories enough to confer upon it the status of a non-infringer and give its products "the status of noninfringing products"
Gaia Technologies, Inc. v. Reconversion Technologies, Inc.
93 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 98 times
Holding that an assignment, executed on October 24, 1994, but which claimed to be effective "prior to Gaia's filing of the instant suit," was not sufficient to confer standing on Gaia
Waterman v. Mackenzie
138 U.S. 252 (1891) Cited 489 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the first and third cases, the assignee may sue in its name alone; in the second case, it may sue "jointly with the assignor"
PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
Case No.: 5:13-CV-01356-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) Cited 33 times
Finding that this factor weighs in favor of a stay where "a claim construction order has been issued and the close of fact discovery is fast approaching" but "a substantial portion of the work—expert discovery, summary judgment, pre-trial preparation, and trial itself—lies ahead"
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 345,529 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Max Sound Corporation, et al v. Google, Inc., et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that the arbitrator does have the power to determine whether various provisions in the contract are void

Holding that a delay "is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement"

Holding that parent corporation lacked standing to sue for infringement of subsidiary's patent where "nothing in the record indicates that [the parent corporation] is an owner or exclusive licensee of the . . . patent"

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

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”

Holding that the plaintiff in patent-infringement action lost standing by assigning all rights to the asserted patents to a non-party entity and that "the case became moot" as a result of the plaintiff's loss of standing

Holding Elekta's earlier judgment of noninfringement on other theories enough to confer upon it the status of a non-infringer and give its products "the status of noninfringing products"

Holding that an assignment, executed on October 24, 1994, but which claimed to be effective "prior to Gaia's filing of the instant suit," was not sufficient to confer standing on Gaia

Holding that in the first and third cases, the assignee may sue in its name alone; in the second case, it may sue "jointly with the assignor"

Finding that this factor weighs in favor of a stay where "a claim construction order has been issued and the close of fact discovery is fast approaching" but "a substantial portion of the work—expert discovery, summary judgment, pre-trial preparation, and trial itself—lies ahead"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss