§Why CasetextPricing

Pharmastem Therapeutics, Incorporated v. Viacell, Incorporated et al

MOTION for Permanent Injunction That ViaCell is Enjoined From Taking Further Action in Civil Action No. 04-1334-GMS in the District Court for the District of Delaware and Memorandum in Support Thereof

10 Cited authorities

  1. Iglesias v. Mutual Life Insurance Company

    156 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 65 times
    Applying Steel to issues of supplemental jurisdiction

  2. Crosley Corporation v. Hazeltine Corporation

    122 F.2d 925 (3d Cir. 1941)   Cited 292 times
    Holding district court abused its discretion by failing to enjoin second-filed duplicative proceedings

  3. Eon Laboratories, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

    298 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2003)   Cited 14 times
    Holding "sham litigation" compulsory in litigation alleged to be sham

  4. Carteret Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Jackson

    812 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 31 times
    Rejecting the defendants' argument that, because they served no pleading—instead the court issued default judgment against them—rule 13 did not become applicable to find that the defendants' claims against the plaintiff for negligence, fraud, abuse of process, and unfair-and-deceptive business practices should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims pursuant to rule 13

  5. Tapalian v. Town of Seekonk

    188 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Mass. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Denying Tusino's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata defense, and noting that party asserting "substantial control" and "virtual representation" theories supporting res judicata has a demanding burden of proof

  6. Small v. Wageman

    291 F.2d 734 (1st Cir. 1961)   Cited 23 times

    No. 5793. June 22, 1961. George P. Lordan, Cambridge, Mass., for appellants. Norman H. Stahl, Manchester, N.H., with whom Shane Devine and Devine, Millimet McDonough, Manchester, N.H., were on brief, for appellees. Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges. WOODBURY, Chief Judge. The plaintiffs-appellants, a husband and wife who are citizens of Massachusetts, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire under its diversity jurisdiction

  7. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,533 times   324 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  8. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  9. Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 13   Cited 4,969 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory

  10. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 3,173 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"