15 Cited authorities

Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
531 U.S. 497 (2001) Cited 1,390 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"
Arrowhead Indus. Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem
846 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 272 times
Holding that jurisdiction depends on "the facts existing when the complaint is filed"
Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle
394 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding express threat where the patentee stated that it would drive the alleged infringer out of business and sue all its customers, warned that "bad things are going to happen," and even identified specific attorneys and law firms in support of his litigation threats
Sandstrom v. Chemlawn Corp.
904 F.2d 83 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 175 times
Holding argument waived because it "was not made to the district court or in appellant's opening brief, surfacing only in his reply brief"
Norman v. Arkansas Department of Education
79 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 1996) Cited 124 times
Holding that after the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, it "lacked jurisdiction to take any further action in it, including dismissing the case with prejudice"
Workgroup Technology Corp. v. MGM Grand Hotel, LLC
246 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D. Mass. 2003) Cited 83 times
Finding four calls, five emails and three faxes to the plaintiff in Massachusetts for the purpose of negotiating the terms of the contract were "unquestionably jurisdictional contacts for the purpose of the constitutional analysis"
Sigros v. Walt Disney World Co.
129 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D. Mass. 2001) Cited 64 times
Holding that Nowak's relaxed relatedness test should be applied and was satisfied when Walt Disney World Resort advertised one of its resorts to Massachusetts residents and a Massachusetts resident, induced by the advertisements to stay at a Disney resort, was injured on the property
Capo, Inc. v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc.
387 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 53 times
Holding that Rule 13 barred infringement claim concerning product that was discovered in prior action because alleged infringer "provided samples of the `Suncovers' product, and sought through discovery to ascertain which patents Dioptics was asserting against the product"
Laboratory Corp. of Am. v. Chiron Corp.
384 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 46 times
Holding that Federal Circuit law applies and emphasizing "the importance of national uniformity in patent cases"
Torres-Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security
250 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.P.R. 2003) Cited 43 times
Denying motion to transfer patent infringement case
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 3,034 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

NMT Medical, Inc. v. Aga Medical Corporation

15 Cited authorities

Holding that the "claim-preclusive effect" of a previous decision by a federal court sitting in diversity is governed by "the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits"

Holding that jurisdiction depends on "the facts existing when the complaint is filed"

Finding express threat where the patentee stated that it would drive the alleged infringer out of business and sue all its customers, warned that "bad things are going to happen," and even identified specific attorneys and law firms in support of his litigation threats

Holding argument waived because it "was not made to the district court or in appellant's opening brief, surfacing only in his reply brief"

Holding that after the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, it "lacked jurisdiction to take any further action in it, including dismissing the case with prejudice"

Finding four calls, five emails and three faxes to the plaintiff in Massachusetts for the purpose of negotiating the terms of the contract were "unquestionably jurisdictional contacts for the purpose of the constitutional analysis"

Holding that Nowak's relaxed relatedness test should be applied and was satisfied when Walt Disney World Resort advertised one of its resorts to Massachusetts residents and a Massachusetts resident, induced by the advertisements to stay at a Disney resort, was injured on the property

Holding that Rule 13 barred infringement claim concerning product that was discovered in prior action because alleged infringer "provided samples of the `Suncovers' product, and sought through discovery to ascertain which patents Dioptics was asserting against the product"

Holding that Federal Circuit law applies and emphasizing "the importance of national uniformity in patent cases"

Denying motion to transfer patent infringement case

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"