§Why CasetextPricing

Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

REPLY

17 Cited authorities

  1. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC

    625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 128 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the execution of a nunc pro tunc assignment nearly eight months after the filing of the complaint from a parent to its subsidiary did not confer standing as plaintiff was "required to have legal title to the patents on the day it filed the complaint and that requirement can not be met retroactively."

  2. Textile Productions, Inc. v. Mead Corp.

    134 F.3d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 144 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff was not an exclusive licensee under the asserted patent and thus lacked standing to bring an infringement action

  3. Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Sys., Inc.

    109 F.3d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 135 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint alleging breach of a patent assignment and royalty agreement does not state a claim arising under the patent laws even though a consequence of finding such a breach may lead to allegations of infringement

  4. 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

  5. H.R. Tech., Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc.

    275 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiffs complaint without prejudice for lack of standing

  6. Aptix Corporation v. Quickturn Design Sys

    269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inventor's fraud in the form of falsified lab notebooks and litigation misconduct made the case exceptional under § 285

  7. Scaife v. Associated Air Center Inc.

    100 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that signatures were required where, among other things, contract contained signature block, along with a provision that amendments had to be in signed writings

  8. Enovsys LLC v. Nextel Communications, Inc.

    614 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 33 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, based on the effect of a divorce decree under California law, a company had standing to bring suit without joining the founder's ex-wife

  9. International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research Ltd.

    257 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 41 times
    Finding lack of standing where defendant co-owner did not voluntarily join

  10. Akazawa v. Link New Tech

    520 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the § 261 written assignment requirement did not apply to the passage of a patent's title through intestacy

  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 345,885 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

  12. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,199 times   476 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  13. Section 261 - Ownership; assignment

    35 U.S.C. § 261   Cited 427 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"