§Why CasetextPricing

Personal Audio LLC v. Fuhu, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule

31 Cited authorities

  1. J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

    564 U.S. 873 (2011)   Cited 1,340 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a metal-shearing machine manufacturer based in England that engaged an independent distributor to sell its machines across the U.S. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey where the plaintiff was injured while using one of the company's machines

  2. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,584 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"

  3. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co.

    342 U.S. 180 (1952)   Cited 1,152 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding stay

  4. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.

    552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 374 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction"

  5. Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.

    21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)   Cited 567 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the forum's interest in discouraging injuries within its territory extends to patent infringement actions

  6. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc.

    946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 598 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the first-to-file rule is discretionary and identifying circumstances, including bad faith, where a court need not defer to first-filed actions

  7. Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.

    174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 356 times
    Holding that, under the first-to-file rule, "the court in which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed"

  8. Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp.

    121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 323 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "complete identity of parties is not required for dismissal or transfer of a case filed subsequently to a substantially related action."

  9. Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 336 times
    Holding that "the forum of the first-filed case is favored" and that such deference to the first-filed case may not be set aside absent a "sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action"

  10. W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. Ila Deep Sea Local 24

    751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985)   Cited 338 times
    Holding that the court with prior jurisdiction over the common subject matter should resolve all issues presented in related actions

  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 345,715 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 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,357 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  13. Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 13   Cited 4,919 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory