§Why CasetextPricing

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

RESPONSE

27 Cited authorities

  1. Ferdik v. Bonzelet

    963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 15,301 times
    Holding that a district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint prior to dismissal

  2. Pagtalunan v. Galaza

    291 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 4,306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on a 41(b) motion, it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether to dismiss when the balance is close

  3. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.

    2 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 918 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the plaintiff must prove service of process if challenged

  4. Anheuser-Busch v. Natural Beverage Distributors

    69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 746 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that terminating sanctions are available when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings"

  5. Connecticut v. New Images

    482 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 456 times
    Holding we may review the record independently to determine if the district court has abused its discretion in applying Rule 37

  6. Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.

    709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 362 times
    Finding "courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice"

  7. Fjelstad v. American Honda Motor Co.

    762 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 318 times
    Holding that the district court exceeded its authority in imposing sanction of default for "negligent failures to provide discovery"

  8. 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."

  9. Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc.

    211 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 156 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a licensing agreement conferred standing even though the license agreement included the wrong patent number because "substantial patent rights were transferred"

  10. DDB TECHN. v. MLB ADV

    517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 88 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contractual language where employee "agrees to and does hereby grant and assign" was "not merely an agreement to assign, but an express assignment of rights in future inventions"

  11. Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 41   Cited 108,001 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,885 times   319 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  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"

  14. Section 3.54 - Effect of recording

    37 C.F.R. § 3.54   Cited 23 times

    The recording of a document pursuant to § 3.11 is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the title to an application, a patent, or a registration. When necessary, the Office will determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office. 37 C.F.R. §3.54 Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations. Part 7 is placed